PDA

View Full Version : The Evolution of Aikido



P Goldsbury
12th July 2008, 06:07
On another matter, prewar, according to two informed, disparate sources that I've spoken to over the last couple of days, Ueshiba taught that aikido was done by GRABBING the other person and doing things to them. This was changed, after the war to tori being grabbed - and NOT by Ueshiba himself.

There is just a hint of this in the Budo Renshu volume (1933) and the Budo volume (Showa 13 = 1938).

The photo that Ellis refers to is on p.51 of The Secret Teachings of Aikido, translated by John Stevens. The demonstration was at the Japan Industrial Club in 1934.

Allen,
Ellis is in Japan at the moment and we talked by telephone a few hours ago. He is coming down to stay with me for a few days here in Hiroshima. We will probably be discussing 'issues' for at least 36 hours each day.:)

Mark Murray
12th July 2008, 14:22
Hello Mark,
There is just a hint of this in the Budo Renshu volume (1933) and the Budo volume (Showa 13 = 1938).

The photo that Ellis refers to is on p.51 of The Secret Teachings of Aikido, translated by John Stevens. The demonstration was at the Japan Industrial Club in 1934.

Allen,
Ellis is in Japan at the moment and we talked by telephone a few hours ago. He is coming down to stay with me for a few days here in Hiroshima. We will probably be discussing 'issues' for at least 36 hours each day.:)

Thank you for the added info.

It sort of brings me to some questions regarding the father and the son Ueshiba. How much did the son actually follow his father?

My guess is that it seems if Kisshomaru Ueshiba had wanted to do something differently after the war, that he wouldn't have to try very hard. First, his father wasn't always there. Second, at some point, Kisshomaru Ueshiba would have had quite a few loyal adherents to his cause, and with the promise of leadership and rank, the only thing in the way might have been Tohei. I'm just musing here and could be way off base. So, the son changes things more to his liking (I'm not judging good or bad here, just that things changed), gathers those that would follow (after all, those that wouldn't have already split off and gone their own way), and starts making his vision world wide.

And being that, in Japan, aikido was a generic term for quite a bit, just calling it aikido was still good. No need for a name change at all. And no need to give away secrets because the vision turned towards a more spiritual harmony outlook. (Again, not judging right or wrong here, just saying that mass appeal requires that some things are sacrificed. It just is that way.)

If I'm wrong in my guesses, I hope you'll correct me. :)

But, I seriously doubt many in the U.S. have much of a clue to a lot of Ueshiba's history (both father and son), aikido history, or Daito ryu history. I know I don't. But it's interesting to see that there was two main branches of aikido: Morihei Ueshiba doing a derivative of Daito ryu and Kisshomaru Ueshiba doing a derivative of his father's art.

Thank you,
Mark

Lance Gatling
12th July 2008, 15:02
Hello Mark,
There is just a hint of this in the Budo Renshu volume (1933) and the Budo volume (Showa 13 = 1938).
。。。。。。。。。
Allen,
Ellis is in Japan at the moment and we talked by telephone a few hours ago. He is coming down to stay with me for a few days here in Hiroshima. We will probably be discussing 'issues' for at least 36 hours each day.:)
I'll see Ellis next week, and will show him more than a hint. ;) I'll spell it out to him.

Seizing your opponent is explicit in the aikibujutsu lesson plan produced by Tomiki Kenji sensei in 1937 for his instruction of the Kanto-gun (i.e., Imperial Army Group Manchuria) Kempeitai, or Military Police; since the lesson plan is marked Kobukan 講武館 (and 'Secret - Do Not Disseminate' by the Japanese military) presumably it was consistent if not identical with what Ueshiba sensei was teaching the Japanese military in Japan. This lesson plan was later made into an official Japanese Army hand to hand combat manual; I have both. And it is certainly 'offensive'.

Tomiki, already an advanced judoka, began studying directly under Ueshiba around 1926, and AFAIK was awarded the traditional menkyo kaiden in aikibujtsu by Ueshiba in 1937. After Ueshiba changed his art’s name to aikidō and adopted the dan grade system, he awarded Tomiki the world’s first aikidō 8th dan in 1940, possibly during Ueshiba's visit to Manchuria (then known as ‘Manchukuo’).

Tomiki and Ueshiba were certainly in contact throughout this period; Tomiki regularly traveled to Japan, and Ueshiba went to Manchuria at least in 1940, the same year he promoted Tomiki to the world's first aikidō 8dan. And from the mid-1930's until aikibujutsu instruction was dropped in favor of a truncated karate curriculum in 1940-something (I don't have my notes handy), while Tomiki taught the Military Police in Manchuria (in addition to a couple of colleges and Lord knows where else), Ueshiba taught aikibujutsu, and presumably with the same curriculum, at least at:
Army Nakano Intelligence School
Army Toyama Officer Training School
Navy Etajima Officer College

I've always thought that this heavy involvement by Ueshiba in training the Japanese Imperial military, along with Tomiki's internment, played a role in Ueshiba's postwar rustification, but haven't found any documentation so far. :(

I'm working on a brief history of how all this together, will get around to finishing it someday, but most definitely these techniques are still being practiced, flourishing but hiding in plain sight, and more accessible than in Daito ryu aikijujutsu.

Where?

When Tomiki was finally released from the Soviet Siberian prison camp 1948 (18 months after seized after the end of the war), upon his return to Japan he became a part-time 'secretary' at the Kodokan, where he met the young Sato Shizuya, then a member of the International Division. There they practiced aikibujutsu one-on-one for 3 years, then later together taught a related ‘aikidō ’, but actually a form of that same aikibujutsu to USAF servicemen at the Kodokan 1952-1956.

Sato sensei later used these aikibujutsu techniques to form the basis of Nihon Jujutsu (sometimes called Sato-ryu Nihon Jujutsu, sometimes known in Japan as Nihon-den Jujutsu); one certainly grabs their opponent in the precursor aikibujutsu art, and in the gendai Nihon Jujutsu as well (which I practice).

To the point of the discussion, in fact the 'grabs' are one of the more difficult points to master, along w/ the kuzushi movements, which I guess in this earlier context some would call 'aiki', but we simply call 'kuzushi'.

Sato sensei's American Embassy Judo Club is the head dojo of Nihon Jujutsu worldwide - we celebrated the dojo’s 50th anniversary last year. There are also some qualified Nihon Jujutsu instructors outside Japan, namely in the US, a couple of places in Europe, and Australia. (Sato sensei, who is the Director, IMAF, only issues dan and instructor qualifications under the auspices of the International Martial Arts Federation, IMAF. See www.imaf.com)

The best qualified Nihon Jujutsu instructor in North America is Nick Suino sensei at the Japan Martial Arts Center in Ann Arbor, MI; see http://www.japanesemartialartscenter.com/jujutsu.php

So, if you want to see prewar aikibujutsu and its seizing and aiki techniques, check out Nihon Jujutsu.

Cheers,

Walker
12th July 2008, 21:49
I'm a little puzzled that the idea of seizing is a new one. It immediately brought the interview with Tokimune to mind:

Q: Are there many techniques in which one attacks first in Daito-ryu?
T: Yes, of course. For example, the police learned jujutsu as arrest techniques, so it must be active. They attack first; it is not self-defense... 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 a rope or handcuff him. The policeman must initiate the attack because he cannot ask the criminal to grab him first. He must start with an attack, and control the opponent with kiai.
Aiki applies to self-defense when an opponent attacks first, and we use the term to refer to self-defense for people in general. These two must not be confused. Thus, the police do not use the word aiki. They use jujutsu. They fight with kiai, using a sen sen attack. Attacking is kiai. Aiki, on the other hand, is go no sen. Policemen are permitted to attack first. This is why police studied Daito-ryu...
p. 55 DRAJJ: Converstions with Daito-ryu Masters, Pranin 1996

Ellis Amdur
12th July 2008, 22:43
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=v7AHRm5uAE8

P Goldsbury
13th July 2008, 03:17
I'll see Ellis next week, and will show him more than a hint. ;) I'll spell it out to him.

Seizing your opponent is explicit in the aikibujutsu lesson plan produced by Tomiki Kenji sensei in 1937 for his instruction of the Kanto-gun (i.e., Imperial Army Group Manchuria) Kempeitai, or Military Police; since the lesson plan is marked Kobukan 講武館 (and 'Secret - Do Not Disseminate' by the Japanese military) presumably it was consistent if not identical with what Ueshiba sensei was teaching the Japanese military in Japan. This lesson plan was later made into an official Japanese Army hand to hand combat manual; I have both. And it is certainly 'offensive'.

Cheers,

I am curious. In Ueshiba's books it is 皇武館. Did Tomiki change it?

Lance Gatling
13th July 2008, 03:58
I am curious. In Ueshiba's books it is 皇武館. Did Tomiki change it?

No, I'm sure you're right, that plus there's no edit function on this forum, and I have judo on the brain. :(....講道館 講武所 etc. My mistake, the correct kanji IIRC reads 皇武館 as you ask. (I just moved and will have to dig out the original for Ellis, there's a mountain of book boxes in my office.)

And Ellis' post above is of course correct - Nihon Jujutsu is a cousin to Yoshinkan aikido, and its grasping techniques are very similar. Now, if I could only move half as well as Chida or Takeno sensei.....:cry: But I've heard lately that the Yoshinkan has sort of imploded, but don't know for a fact.

Regarding the use of jujutsu by the police as arresting techniques, there is a serialization of a very old Japanese police judo kata on the Judo Forum at http://judoforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26617&st=0&p=371398&#entry371398
It clearly shows the seizing required to take the initiative. Yamashita was a jujutsuka before (and during??) his judo career. In fact, seizing your opponent is sort of a judo specialty, although there are very advanced techniques that don't require you to grasp someone. Just don't ask me to demo them.

See you,

henjoyuko
13th July 2008, 04:51
I'm definitely sticking my neck out on this one, so if you want to lop it off . . . well, it's a slow pitch . . . I'm thinking that Takeda Tokimune is about as reputed for demonstrating remarkable Aiki Power, Kokyu Ryoku, what have you as Ueshiba Kisshomaru was, so I pay attention to what he says, but take it with a grain of salt.

So as far as seizing goes, I was taught as Ellis said, "Ueshiba taught that aikido was done by GRABBING the other person and doing things to them. This was changed, after the war to tori being grabbed."

Now, the logical question a foreigner would ask was, "How did one do that sensei?" and the Japanese answer, "Just as we do in practice."

My understanding: Jujutsu follows jujutsu principles, aiki follows its own, or they can be combined. The seizing following jujutsu principles operates very much as Ellis posted. (Although I would add that the initial atemi should be the show stopper. The assumptions I was taught was: Multiple armed opponents with lethal intent. So if one's opening atemi isn't effective (conclusive), one is already in deep do-do.) The seizing following aiki principles was sensei grabbing you and putting your a** where he wanted it (as I recall).

So, one strike one kill, as spoken of by Ueshiba Morihei (when asked to create rules for the dojo), Aiki seizing is Aiki seizing (there is not opponent in Aiki), jujutsu remains jujutsu.

I aspire to them all . . . and the message . . . and fail regularly.

[OK, back to my wine and wife :).]

henjoyuko
13th July 2008, 16:03
So I’m sitting around drinking coffee and thinking about jujutsu, and aiki, and teaching, and secrets, and fathers and sons . . .

My present understanding is that (insert name here) ~jutsu is concerned about sen and other tactical considerations, aiki isn’t concerned about sen or other tactical considerations because aiki is a state of being not becoming (which can been seen as a tactical consideration in and of itself), hence the applicability of Ueshiba’s enigmatic use of the phrase “katsu haya bi,” and statements such as “there are no kata in Aikido.” The state of aiki can of course be applied to one’s manifestation of (insert name here) ~jutsu. [One confusing factor when discussing aiki is that some folks use it as a verb and others as a noun, and some use it both ways. Obviously I’m thinking of it as a noun here.]

Various forms of (insert name here) ~jutsu were ubiquitous in Japan and so if one were to be notable among the multitude one would either have to have connections or make a name for oneself by being individually unique among the various forms of (insert name here) ~jutsu. Clearly both Takeda Sr. and Ueshiba Sr. did both.

Now, when it came to teaching (insert name here) to (insert name here) it seems that they taught (insert name here) ~jutsu, rather than what it was that made them individually unique. This may be due simply to the pragmatic nature of teaching groups of individuals for pragmatic purposes like military and/or police. Or, it may be due to the “steal it if you can” methodology of teaching. Or, it may be due people’s inability to see “the forest for the trees.” Or, it may have been due to a purposeful obfuscation for moral , tactical, or business (Why teach them to fish when I make a living as a fish seller?) reasons. Or maybe they are Beethoven and Mozart among a sea of nameless composers.

I scratch my head though when I ponder the question: Wouldn’t a father allow his son to inherit the totality of the family business? I’m guessing the answer would be in the affirmative, unless the son was seen as an inappropriate candidate for the transmission for any number of reasons, or if the father just didn’t give a care.

Still one might not see the full result of this transmission manifested if a) the son had a limited capacity/talent to learn (not everyone is a Beethoven or a Mozart), or b) the son purposefully chose not to display that transmission. ‘B’ seems rather unlikely to me though because a public manifestation was already set as a precedent by the father and proved to be both quite useful for marketing and quite difficult to “steal.”

Anyway, as you can see I’m not offering any answers here, just thinking out loud.

Perhaps I'll practice "chopsticks" some more on the piano today!

P Goldsbury
13th July 2008, 16:36
Hello Allen,

Some thoughts.


So I’m sitting around drinking coffee and thinking about jujutsu, and aiki, and teaching, and secrets, and fathers and sons . . .

My present understanding is that (insert name here) ~jutsu is concerned about sen and other tactical considerations, aiki isn’t concerned about sen or other tactical considerations because aiki is a state of being not becoming (which can been seen as a tactical consideration in and of itself), hence the applicability of Ueshiba’s enigmatic use of the phrase “katsu haya bi,” and statements such as “there are no kata in Aikido.”
PAG. Are you sure that this is what he meant? You have put it in terms of ‘western’ existential concepts. Are you sure that this captures “katsu haya bi”? He actually taught ‘waza’, which seem to me to have beginnings, middles and also ends.


Now, when it came to teaching (insert name here) to (insert name here) it seems that they taught (insert name here) ~jutsu, rather than what it was that made them individually unique. This may be due simply to the pragmatic nature of teaching groups of individuals for pragmatic purposes like military and/or police. Or, it may be due to the “steal it if you can” methodology of teaching. Or, it may be due people’s inability to see “the forest for the trees.” Or, it may have been due to a purposeful obfuscation for moral, tactical, or business (Why teach them to fish when I make a living as a fish seller?) reasons. Or maybe they are Beethoven and Mozart among a sea of nameless composers.
PAG. There are an awful lot of generalizations here, which you then focus below in an alarmingly narrow fashion, when you scratch your head.


I scratch my head though when I ponder the question: Wouldn’t a father allow his son to inherit the totality of the family business? I’m guessing the answer would be in the affirmative, unless the son was seen as an inappropriate candidate for the transmission for any number of reasons, or if the father just didn’t give a care.
PAG. You can ponder the question, but you also need to ponder (a) whether the father quite saw the question in terms of ‘the totality of the family business’, and (b) ditto, for the answer you ascribe to him in respect of the son, and (c) The son seen as an inappropriate candidate by whom?


Still one might not see the full result of this transmission manifested if a) the son had a limited capacity/talent to learn (not everyone is a Beethoven or a Mozart), or b) the son purposefully chose not to display that transmission. ‘B’ seems rather unlikely to me though because a public manifestation was already set as a precedent by the father and proved to be both quite useful for marketing and quite difficult to “steal.”
PAG. Actually, I think that c) is a plausible alternative. The son might have had the capacity, but was never given the chance to exploit it; the son quite certainly chose not to display that transmission for reasons that the father simply was not in a position to understand, let alone appreciate.


Anyway, as you can see I’m not offering any answers here, just thinking out loud.
PAG. So am I.

As always, best wishes,

PAG

Mark Murray
13th July 2008, 16:48
After reading Allen's post, I had a thought which seemed kind of stupid. Stupid in that it seems so obvious. What if Ueshiba's vision of aikido, the martial art, was truly literal? It was the way of aiki. In other words, no jutsu at all. Just pure aiki that he merged with his spiritual foundation. This is the later years, mind you.

And when students wanted to learn his "aikido", he looked at what he knew, Daito ryu, and looked at the thousands of techniques and decided to trim it down because to learn his aikido, you didn't need all of them.

Certainly explains a lot of his rantings and quotes. It's all the same, you aren't doing my aikido, etc, etc. And it'd explain why his son chose a different manner for aikido worldwide. I mean, how do you teach the father's vision? To the masses? Better to just use the core jutsu that his father taught. After all, the jutsu still contained the message of blending and harmony.

And maybe that's why Ueshiba didn't meet with Takeda. He really didn't want to do the break/kill of Daito ryu. He was leaning more and more towards the spiritual version of expressing aiki. And maybe that's why there was a falling out between Takeda and Deguchi. Takeda saw a lot of potential in Ueshiba but also saw that Deguchi's vision would change things. But I'm digressing from my main thoughts.

Ueshiba's vision of a pure martial art built upon aiki (from Daito ryu) but yet weirdly enough, didn't include a version of jutsu. It only included the pared down syllabus of Daito ryu because Ueshiba needed something to demonstrate and teach students with. Maybe it went beyond changing Daito ryu's bring in and down for break/kill to aikido's pass-through? Maybe for Ueshiba it was purely spiritual aiki and that required the pass-through outlook. Not the pass-through outlook for jutsu's sake, but as a byproduct of Ueshiba trying to do pure spiritual aiki in a martial context. And that would be something very different than any other martial art.

As Allen stated, just thinking out loud here.

Mark

henjoyuko
13th July 2008, 18:54
Hi Peter,

Thanks for the reply. I'll see what I can do to clarify my random blather . . .


PAG. Are you sure that this is what he meant? You have put it in terms of ‘western’ existential concepts. Are you sure that this captures “katsu haya bi”? He actually taught ‘waza’, which seem to me to have beginnings, middles and also ends.

ADB: Well, No, I'm pretty sure I don't know what he meant. (I'm probably also a little fuzzy on Western existential concepts as well, to be honest.) But I think that Masa Katsu A Katsu, Katsu Haya Bi is a pretty neat phrase/formula/explication of Aiki as matches my growing understanding of what that (Aiki) is based on personal experience, the teachings of Shirata sensei and my understandings of the teachings of Ueshiba, his peers and his teacher (or what I can discern about what his teacher taught based on the information available to me.) {BTW, perhaps I should admit that, as a second generation student of a first generation student (depending upon one's breakdown) of O-sensei, I maintain very little hope of learning Ueshiba Morihei's Aikido and am rather suspicious of those that claim to do so. Rather, I do my best to understand and reproduce Aikido as it was taught to me by my teacher knowing that it won’t be, can’t be, and perhaps shouldn’t be the same.}

and

Yes, he did teach 'waza,' which I agree seem to have beginnings, middles and ends. He also taught 'dosa' and 'ho.' But to my mind none of these are Aiki. Perhaps they are means to Aiki, but they are not Aiki in and of themselves, which explains that rather odd statement made by Ueshiba,more than once if I'm correct, "There are no kata in Aiki-do."

PAG. There are an awful lot of generalizations here, which you then focus below in an alarmingly narrow fashion, when you scratch your head.

ADB: Well yeah. That is the nature of brain storming I suppose.

PAG. You can ponder the question, but you also need to ponder (a) whether the father quite saw the question in terms of ‘the totality of the family business’, and (b) ditto, for the answer you ascribe to him in respect of the son, and (c) The son seen as an inappropriate candidate by whom?

ADB: Good points all. Out of curiosity, what are you implying and who are you alluding to when you as the question, “The son seen as an inappropriate candidate by whom?”

PAG. Actually, I think that c) is a plausible alternative. The son might have had the capacity, but was never given the chance to exploit it; the son quite certainly chose not to display that transmission for reasons that the father simply was not in a position to understand, let alone appreciate.

ADB: Could you expand on what you mean by “it” when you say “but was never given the chance to exploit it; . . .” I’m tempted to think that you are referring to the breadth of technical compendium which he most assuredly was exposed to rather than Aiki proper and its appendant attributes and powers. I can understand the former but not the latter. If you meant the latter, then I’m missing something important I suspect. Why would “the son quite certainly chose not to display that transmission for reasons that the father simply was not in a position to understand, let alone appreciate.” ??


PAG. So am I.

ADB: Me too still, but enjoying it nonetheless. Sorry about the delayed response but my 2 year old son requested that he be allowed to stay home and “play with Dad” rather than go to the store with his Mom and sister. It probably won’t be long before he wants nothing to do with me, so I try to savor every moment!

Kind regards,

Allen

henjoyuko
13th July 2008, 19:29
After reading Allen's post, I had a thought which seemed kind of stupid. Stupid in that it seems so obvious. What if Ueshiba's vision of aikido, the martial art, was truly literal? It was the way of aiki. In other words, no jutsu at all. Just pure aiki that he merged with his spiritual foundation.

Mark

Hi Mark,

Yeah that is kind of where I'm at. Keeping in mind that "his spiritual foundation" appears to be how he understood Aiki so even that is pragmatic. That would explain why he didn't see Aiki-do as a religion but the key to understand religion.

Also, I would keep in mind that he was a human and as such was probably as susceptible to double standards and internal conflicts as the rest of us.

Finally, especially after a little epiphany yesterday, I really wonder if he "softened" Daito Ryu to bring it into line with his spiritual vision. Here is what makes me wonder: During the war years he taught soldiers to kill and the Kobukan certainly didn't have a reputation for its peace, love and harmony. Challengers left the premisses broken. The Asahi film was made during the war years (Japan wasn't at war with the U.S. at the time but it certainly was involved in military expansion in neighboring countries) and reflects the smooth and expansive expression of Aikido seen later. Fast forward to Stan Prannin sharing Budo Renshu or Budo (can't remember which) with Saito sensei and Saito sensei stating that this was the first time he'd ever seen the book but both marveling at how what Saito sensei had preserved of what Ueshiba sensei had taught him (POST WAR) was virtually identical.

Hmmm

After O-sensei's death, Shirata sensei would visit and train in Iwama at his kohai Saito sensei's dojo because, for him, that was about as close an approximation to the training he used to enjoy with Ueshiba sensei as was available at the time.

My point is, as far as I can tell, Ueshiba sensei changed Daito Ryu to suit himself and that is about it. I don't think he necessarily changed the waza to suit his religious views. Also, I suspect that he didn't see his martial pursuits to be in conflict with his religious ones. He single-mindedly perused both (another paradox).

Anyway, that, roughly stated, is where my understanding is at in this whole mess. :cool:

henjoyuko
13th July 2008, 19:36
Oh, and if O-sensei didn't really change what and how he taught Aikido . . . who did?

Peter . . . your assistance please!


:D

P Goldsbury
14th July 2008, 02:56
Good Morning, Allen,

I opened my iMac and saw your response. Here are a few more thoughts.

1. With Masa katsu etc, I have a hard time distinguishing what O Sensei meant by the phrase from what the compiler of the Kojiki--or whoever came up with the name for the deity--meant by it. Actually, the Kojiki complier makes it easier: he gives a clear context of some sort of contest between Ama-terasu and Susa-no-o. With O Sensei this original context is absent. Sure, he could be talking about 'instant victory', but elsewhere he talks about aiki as something that completely transcends victory or defeat.

Have you quarried through Takemusu Aiki, or read carefully John S.'s renderings in the new book? It is hard going to study and ponder the phrase itself and the context each time it appears. So I myself prefer to stay with the Kojiki version.

2. As for the meaning of 'it', which you asked about, it was a quote from your own earlier post:

"Still one might not see the full result of this transmission manifested if a) the son had a limited capacity/talent to learn (not everyone is a Beethoven or a Mozart), or b) the son purposefully chose not to display that transmission."

Since you appeared to be thinking of capacity/talent purely in terms of how O Sensei saw it, I suggested another alternative, which was that the son had the capacity, but chose to display it in different terms. Hence the father's angry outbursts on his occasional visits to the Aikikai Hombu.

The more I read by and about Kisshomaru, the more I am convinced he knew exactly what he was doing. It is not a matter of aiki or the number of waza: it is a huge generational shift.

PAG

henjoyuko
14th July 2008, 04:45
Good Morning, Allen,

I opened my iMac and saw your response. Here are a few more thoughts.

1. With Masa katsu etc, I have a hard time distinguishing what O Sensei meant by the phrase from what the compiler of the Kojiki--or whoever came up with the name for the deity--meant by it. Actually, the Kojiki complier makes it easier: he gives a clear context of some sort of contest between Ama-terasu and Susa-no-o. With O Sensei this original context is absent. Sure, he could be talking about 'instant victory', but elsewhere he talks about aiki as something that completely transcends victory or defeat.

Well that is kind of what I was getting at with my statement that I don't pretend to understand what O-sensei meant by Masa Katsu etc. I only pretend to understand what I impose upon O-sensei's meaning of Masa Katsu etc. as it makes sense to me in the context of Aikido as I understand it. And, of course my understanding is totally prejudiced.

I agree, to the extent that I can based on my limited knowledge and limited library of Kojiki translations and interpretations, that the compiler of the Kojiki is actually easier to pin down. But that being said, I have to admit to feeling uncomfortable even having this conversation with you (much less publicly) as I don't feel qualified to speak intelligibly on this subject (or related Western ones for that matter) beyond the broadest of terms. You are far better trained (an understatement I know) and have at your disposal literary and scholarly resources that I most certainly am not even aware of.

Nevertheless, in my own little Buddhist soteriological world, the idea of instant victory (a-temporal) and transcendent victory (beyond the the duality of victory and defeat) makes perfect sense. Presently I'm guessing that O-sensei made sense of his immediate reality: Gee, when I "get right" (Masa Katsu) with the universe (A Katsu), I can "tool" everybody else without even trying! (Katsu Haya Bi) via the narrative/cosmology gained from his interpretation of Omoto Kyo and other sources. It didn't make sense to anybody else. But that doesn't matter. Essentially he was communicating with himself about his own reality. He was happy to share his interpretation of reality with others but, understandably, they have a hard time "getting it" because: a) they hadn't experienced what he'd experienced (i.e. they hadn't "gotten right" (masa katsu) with the universe (a katsu) in the way he had (probably via a Daito Ryu method possibly interfacing with Shinto style shugyo) and therefore haven't experienced "tooling" everybody effortlessly (katsu haya bi) in the way he had, and b) even if they did (and it would appear that some did at a certain point) they didn't interpret their experience in the context of the same narrative/cosmology as he did.


Have you quarried through Takemusu Aiki, or read carefully John S.'s renderings in the new book? It is hard going to study and ponder the phrase itself and the context each time it appears. So I myself prefer to stay with the Kojiki version.

No. And I'm unlikely to any time soon. Not that I shouldn't, or wouldn't, but I have two young children you see . . . and am remodeling the house (to make room for the family), and am supposedly training and teaching one art internationally while learning and training in another, not to mention that folks keep wanting me to be a Buddhist priest even though I'm kind of kind of busy, and I should be practicing my shodo, and of course there is the whole job thing . . . what a bother. (I'm not feeling sorry for myself though. ;) ) So for now, I'll take your word on it.


2. As for the meaning of 'it', which you asked about, it was a quote from your own earlier post:

"Still one might not see the full result of this transmission manifested if a) the son had a limited capacity/talent to learn (not everyone is a Beethoven or a Mozart), or b) the son purposefully chose not to display that transmission."

Since you appeared to be thinking of capacity/talent purely in terms of how O Sensei saw it, I suggested another alternative, which was that the son had the capacity, but chose to display it in different terms. Hence the father's angry outbursts on his occasional visits to the Aikikai Hombu.

The more I read by and about Kisshomaru, the more I am convinced he knew exactly what he was doing. It is not a matter of aiki or the number of waza: it is a huge generational shift.

PAG

Makes a lot sense to me. Kids! :cry:

Peter I apologize for not providing a more intelligent or well informed sounding board. I certainly do appreciate your thoughts and responses though and hope we continue to dialogue in the future.

Sincerely,

Allen

Lance Gatling
14th July 2008, 06:32
......Since you appeared to be thinking of capacity/talent purely in terms of how O Sensei saw it, I suggested another alternative, which was that the son had the capacity, but chose to display it in different terms. Hence the father's angry outbursts on his occasional visits to the Aikikai Hombu.

The more I read by and about Kisshomaru, the more I am convinced he knew exactly what he was doing. It is not a matter of aiki or the number of waza: it is a huge generational shift.

PAG
I am bemused by this discussion - not being an avid follower of Things Aikido, I don't know if this is normal discourse (although I have read some of Stanley Pranin's nice research, which to his credit somewhat enlightens my thoughts, although I'm sure there are massive gaps yet to be illuminated, though entirely my fault) but surely PAG is onto something; it seems fairly apparent, looking from the outside.

Generational shifts engender change, and in particular this 'huge generational shift' did not happen in a sterile environment.

It may be hard for non-Japanese to realize the state of postwar Japan, but the Great Pacific War (i.e., World War II) left Japan devasted, many of its traditional institutions in tatters or simply gone. The major cities from Aomori south were pretty much flattened, burned out. Millions dead, the youth of country more than decimated. Tens of millions scrambling to eat and get a roof over their heads, much less have nice, thoughtful budo practice sessions (particularly of the militaristic bent so popular just weeks before.....). Millions of swords, spears, naginata, and guns are confiscated and destroyed or toted off to Nebraska as war souvenirs, authorized one per soldier.

The heretofore primarily rural, agricultural population rushes to the cities to find work, food, and shelter, further dismantling what networks there'd been among martial artists and their students.

There's an Occupation authority to deal with, which directs the Japanese govt to ban school budo, which it does 100% (thereby tossing thousands of school judo and kendo instructors out of secure jobs), the Butokukai closes itself down rather than reform, and most of the cream of martial arts instructors, who prewar had been very well compensated or held sinecures in schools or universities, lionized by the public, government and military in many instances, by and large find themselves completely unemployed. The Ministry of Education is out of the martial arts business entirely, where it had previously structured the bulk of it throughout the country, subsidized the instruction and events, and rewritten the curricula.

To the degree that some art was centralized and had adopted to the norms of the militarists, the more it seems to have been in limbo. Those that do stay open make sure they're now all about love, wa, harmony, blah blah, at least in public, and if for no other reason that to stay out of SCAP's crosshairs. It is no longer glorious to prepare to die for the Emperor, and Japan is not special, it is utterly defeated and the society is in turmoil as it contemplates its future and tries to survive day to day.

It took the much larger and well supported arts of judo and kendo years to get permission from SCAP to have public demonstrations, organize on a national level, and get school budo back on the curriculum. Judo drops all the prewar self-defense and atemi techniques and announced a new focus on 'sport judo'. Kendo even changes its very name to 'compliant staff competition' (???) for a time, to divorce itself from the militaristic 'sword', and distances itself from much of its roots.

What was a tiny art like aikido to do, pretty much on its own, particularly without the massive, national following enjoyed by judo and aikido?

So, is it surprising that Ueshiba Kisshomaru adopted to the needs and environment of the time in order to keep the dojo doors open (and to make a living? don't know the family's financial situation) and in keeping the art alive, changes it (perhaps not for the express purpose of keeping it alive, but nevertheless changes it). Meanwhile, Ueshiba Morihei, who had up until 1943 or later (IIRC...) personally given aikibujutsu classes to Imperial military elite generals, spies, military police, etc., many of whom are banned from public life, arrested, under trial for war crimes, or dead, rusticates in self-imposed exile.

And some of his prewar students such as Tomiki and Shioda take a different path, and survive while keeping a different flavor of the art alive, but surely one learned prewar and honed during the militaristic Imperial era (not that the art itself was 'militaristic' or 'Imperial', but that era surely had an impact on the 'martial' nature of the philosophy and training).

Is this surprising or offbase? As I said, I'm not an aikido scholar by any means.

Regards,

Lance

henjoyuko
14th July 2008, 16:16
Hi Lance,

You might want to check out Aikiweb and Aikido Journal as well. Peter has a column on Aikiweb, as well as many of the conversations and conversationalists are some what contiguous sliding between one forum and another.

Thanks for sharing. I've enjoyed your unique perspective, especially some of the more specific information in earlier posts. Even a small bit of new information helps to fill in the "granularity" of the larger picture.

Thanks,

Allen

chrismoses
14th July 2008, 16:40
After reading Allen's post, I had a thought which seemed kind of stupid. Stupid in that it seems so obvious. What if Ueshiba's vision of aikido, the martial art, was truly literal? It was the way of aiki. In other words, no jutsu at all. Just pure aiki that he merged with his spiritual foundation. This is the later years, mind you.


Mark, you (and others) might find my thread on Sprit of Aikido (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=181612#post181612) interesting. I tried to use Kisshomaru's book as a jumping off point for a similar thesis. :)

Lance Gatling
14th July 2008, 17:07
Mark, you (and others) might find my thread on Sprit of Aikido (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=181612#post181612) interesting. I tried to use Kisshomaru's book as a jumping off point for a similar thesis. :)

Waaaay too esoteric for me in spots, that thread, but the bit about Kisshomaru sorting out what can make sense to modern Japanese strikes a chord in me.

One point, someone (George S. Ledyard) noted:
'Its modern name was officially adopted in 1942 as a result of the reorganization of Japanese martial arts by the DAI NIHON BUTOKUKAI./

I have heard the name was adopted in 1942, but have never heard such change was ' result of the reorganization of Japanese martial arts by the DAI NIHON BUTOKUKAI.'

Anyone have a source for such a claim?

There was a reorganization of the Butokukai then but AFAIK it was to oust kyudo and spears / introduce rifle marksmanship and grenades throws / focus more on the skills young lads needed to be appropriate cannon fodder for the Empire. I've never heard aikido's name changed as a result of this or any other shift on the part of the Butokukai.

Was aikido even a part of the Butokukai? Maybe because of Ueshiba sensei's teaching of the Imperial military, I dunno.

Thanks,

Lg

chrismoses
14th July 2008, 17:41
One point, someone (George S. Ledyard) noted:
'Its modern name was officially adopted in 1942 as a result of the reorganization of Japanese martial arts by the DAI NIHON BUTOKUKAI./

I have heard the name was adopted in 1942, but have never heard such change was ' result of the reorganization of Japanese martial arts by the DAI NIHON BUTOKUKAI.'

Anyone have a source for such a claim?



See this thread for some sources. (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12515&highlight=butokukai)

Mark Murray
14th July 2008, 19:52
Hi Mark,

Yeah that is kind of where I'm at. Keeping in mind that "his spiritual foundation" appears to be how he understood Aiki so even that is pragmatic. That would explain why he didn't see Aiki-do as a religion but the key to understand religion.

Also, I would keep in mind that he was a human and as such was probably as susceptible to double standards and internal conflicts as the rest of us.

Finally, especially after a little epiphany yesterday, I really wonder if he "softened" Daito Ryu to bring it into line with his spiritual vision.

(snip some for brevity...)

My point is, as far as I can tell, Ueshiba sensei changed Daito Ryu to suit himself and that is about it. I don't think he necessarily changed the waza to suit his religious views. Also, I suspect that he didn't see his martial pursuits to be in conflict with his religious ones. He single-mindedly perused both (another paradox).

Anyway, that, roughly stated, is where my understanding is at in this whole mess. :cool:

Hi Allen,

Well, I look at certain bits and pieces like this:

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=177556&postcount=9



"Mukashi kara, budou wa ayamatte jinmei wo taezu koroshiau houkou ni susunde kita no de aru ga, aiki wa jinmei wo sukuu tame ni aru no de aru. sunawachi hitogoroshi yobouhou ga aiki de aru. hito wo korosu nakare ga aiki de ari, 'ai' (= 合)wa 'ai' (= 愛) ni tsujiru no de, watashi wa etoku shita dokuji no michi wo 'aikido' to yobu koto ni shita no de aru. Shitagatte, juurai no bujutsu no hitobito ga kuchi ni suru 'aiki' to, watashi no iu 'aiki' to wa sono naiyou, honshitsu ga konpontekini kotonaru. Kono koto wo minasan wa oshiete hoshii to negau no de aru."

"Fron old times, budou mistakenly came to be a means of constantly ending human life, but aiki is something that preserves human life. Namely, aiki is a way of taking precaution against killing (i.e., homicide / murder). Aiki does not kill human beings and 'ai' (合 = matching) leads to 'ai' (愛 = love), so that I decided to give the name 'aikido' to the original way I discerned. Consequently, the term 'aiki' used up to now by people in the fighting arts and the term 'aiki' that I use are fundamentally different in content and substance. It is my hope and request that everyone teaches this."


And I notice that Ueshiba talks about how the aiki in the fighting arts is now different than the aiki that he uses.

And while the overall outward appearance of the techniques are close enough to say they are from Daito ryu, there is still a bit of a different ending to them. Or sort of. The "capturing" element is not exactly the same. Ukes are bouncing outward most of the time. From what I've seen of Daito ryu, ukes aren't normally doing that -- normally.

I think Ueshiba was more literal than people realized. That he did learn the ai of "matching" from Daito ryu. And that he didn't "change" that at all. It was still the aiki of Daito ryu. But, from his Omoto kyo and spiritual leanings, he found that this aiki led him to the ai of "love". (Now which love he meant is another subject.)

I don't think he softened Daito ryu at all. By then, he was doing something different than Daito ryu. And for what he wanted to do, he didn't need the whole Daito ryu syllabus.

I'm starting to wonder if Ueshiba wasn't getting "high" from doing his martial art. That the spiritual side sort of gave him a natural high. Not because of the spiritual alone. But because he had the Daito ryu aiki foundation and when he started adding spiritual dimensions to it ... well, matching energy coming in and going out, spiraling down and out, etc. Did he get high doing this stuff? Becoming one with the universe kind of spiritual high that had a physical base to it?

I mean, just because one is spiritual can mean you can attain some satori or type of enlightenment, but Ueshiba added in physical energy from attackers that had to have amplified his spiritual meditation.

Just thinking out loud again. :)

Mark

Mark Murray
14th July 2008, 19:58
Mark, you (and others) might find my thread on Sprit of Aikido (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=181612#post181612) interesting. I tried to use Kisshomaru's book as a jumping off point for a similar thesis. :)

Hi Chris,

Yeah, I remember that thread now. I lost track of it. Some good stuff in there. I need to read that book, but I think K. Ueshiba did make changes after the war. And I think he altered the overall focus of aikido. I'll see if I can post my thoughts on that thread.

Mark

henjoyuko
14th July 2008, 23:10
Hi Allen,

Well, I look at certain bits and pieces like this:

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=177556&postcount=9



And I notice that Ueshiba talks about how the aiki in the fighting arts is now different than the aiki that he uses.

And while the overall outward appearance of the techniques are close enough to say they are from Daito ryu, there is still a bit of a different ending to them. Or sort of. The "capturing" element is not exactly the same. Ukes are bouncing outward most of the time. From what I've seen of Daito ryu, ukes aren't normally doing that -- normally.

I think Ueshiba was more literal than people realized. That he did learn the ai of "matching" from Daito ryu. And that he didn't "change" that at all. It was still the aiki of Daito ryu. But, from his Omoto kyo and spiritual leanings, he found that this aiki led him to the ai of "love". (Now which love he meant is another subject.)

I don't think he softened Daito ryu at all. By then, he was doing something different than Daito ryu. And for what he wanted to do, he didn't need the whole Daito ryu syllabus.

I'm starting to wonder if Ueshiba wasn't getting "high" from doing his martial art. That the spiritual side sort of gave him a natural high. Not because of the spiritual alone. But because he had the Daito ryu aiki foundation and when he started adding spiritual dimensions to it ... well, matching energy coming in and going out, spiraling down and out, etc. Did he get high doing this stuff? Becoming one with the universe kind of spiritual high that had a physical base to it?

I mean, just because one is spiritual can mean you can attain some satori or type of enlightenment, but Ueshiba added in physical energy from attackers that had to have amplified his spiritual meditation.

Just thinking out loud again. :)

Mark

Hi Mark,

The translation is accurate I believe.

You say,

"I notice that Ueshiba talks about how the aiki in the fighting arts is now different than the aiki that he uses."

May I suggest that you read it again? Ueshiba says, ""Fron old times, budou mistakenly came to be a means of constantly ending human life,"

So the initial distinction seems to be comparing "old Budo to his "new michi."

He then goes on to say, "but aiki is something that preserves human life. Namely, aiki is a way of taking precaution against killing (i.e., homicide / murder). Aiki does not kill human beings and 'ai' (合 = matching) leads to 'ai' (愛 = love), so that I decided to give the name 'aikido' to the original way I discerned."

Here he seems to define aiki for us, not differentiate it from some other aiki.

Finially, he does bring the two together, "Consequently, the term 'aiki' used up to now by people in the fighting arts and the term 'aiki' that I use are fundamentally different in content and substance. It is my hope and request that everyone teaches this."

Here he uses the term "bujutsu" (like he used Budo) in reference to "the old way" in juxtaposition to his "new way," as if to say, "Well that "old way" was all about killing so anything they talk about (including Aiki) must be about killing.

Here again it is hard to sort O-sensei out. I mean here he unilaterally condemns all old Budo and Bujutsu as perverted killing arts and then takes care to properly define Aiki because it is used in the name Aikido and Aikido might therefore be mistakenly associated via this one common word with those old perverted killing arts. But there are many other times when he refers to Aikido as Budo. So what gives?

I hear your description of Daito Ryu waza and I can understand the desire and inclination to contrast that to modern Aikido waza, and I would agree that your observation appears generally true. But, I reiterate, your description of Daito Ryu waza also matches Aikido practice as taught by O-sensei to many of his students. And when I say "students of O-sensei" I don't mean student of the O-sensei who popped in and out of the dojo occasionally and said, "This isn't my Aikido."

So, yeah, O-sensei changed stuff (like Takeda's other students) and he kept stuff too (like Takeda's other students.) I suspect that the large qualitative difference that you observe isn't primarily a product of O-sensei though. I would look to his son for that. If you look at Tomiki, Shirata, Shioda, and even Saito there is a lot of core commonality (particularly between the first three). I think it is because they had the same teacher.

But you see that is where the rub is. There is one story line and one experience by a whole generation (that is passing away now) and it is contrast with a whole other story line and experience from a whole other generation (that already passed away). So most folks don't see the conflict.

This is why I always want to know the context in which O-sensei is quoted. He taught differently in different contexts and I'm convinced he spoke differently in different contexts. I don't know how to make it much plainer. He taught people how to kill and he taught people to not kill.

Ueshiba sensei wouldn't be alone if he mellowed in his older years but I suspect he didn't have some major reconciliation between his Martial and Religious lives because he didn't need a reconciliation. They were all ready reconciled in his mind.

It could go something like:
Budo isn't bad when it follows the true way of the Kami. If we lost the war it is proof that the military and leadership wasn't following the true way of the kami. War is always bad because it means that people aren't following the true way of the kami and when people aren't following the true way of the kami they will be pacified. Therefore, we should all purify ourselves and follow the true way of the kami so that peace prevails and war will be unnecessary.

Or to put it another way . . . O-sensei never stopped practicing with weapons. Are we to believe that O-sensei modified the weaponry so that they are somehow now harmless because that conformed to O-sensei's religious views? I don't think so. Although, I don't doubt for a minute that O-sensei considered his sword to be the sword of pacification . . . because it followed the way of the kami. Now, it is my understanding that weapons was hardly ever taught at the Hombu dojo under Kisshomaru's leadership . . . I wonder why?

See what I mean?

Are we to believe that O-sensei ignored his religious views during Japan's war years? (Some of the Omoto Kyo believers being tortured in prison at the time that felt he had.) When he taught practical Aikido to military, police, spies, etc. Where were his religious beliefs when he was acting as body guard for Onisaburo in Manchuria? He was armed and dangerous . . . reportedly he cut down several attackers . . . but in a loving and kind way??

You see, I think Ueshiba Morihei was a complex character probably full of contradictions (like the rest of us) and his martial art and message reflect that. But that complexity doesn't sell well and it particularly wouldn't sell well immediately after the war.

BTW, we might find these seeming contradictions hard to swallow, but I think in Japan it is much easier. Every one lives with multiple rolls to play and individuals switch from one to another and nobody questions the fact. Sometimes time changes those rolls and that is accepted as well. There isn't a lot of guilt associated with doing certain things as long as you and the rest of the group views it as appropriate to your role at the time. There are still groups of soldiers and even spies (I met some.) that join together regularly to remember the old times and re-affirm their role in the group. As long as they maintain their proper behavior in the proper context there isn't "a problem."

What came after Ueshiba Morihei retirement, curriculum and message wise, was, and is, much more unified and palatable.

Of course YMMV. I'm just looking at the facts as I see them.

Imperial Way = Yes
Universal Way = Yes
Killing Art = Yes
Softer Art = Yes

All in one guy? Yes

:look:

Dan Harden
15th July 2008, 00:13
Hi Allen
Interesting post. I agree that his "spiritual" side certainly received more press than the reality portrayed. You can add to your list the Uke he hurt in demos and the judoka who's hip he supposedly dislocated at the Kodokan.

That said, while I have my own opinions on things-what are your views on the expressed difference in outcome of his waza?
a) Do you think he was incapable of expressing the waza more typically seen in DR? If not, why not?
b) Do you think he chose to make a shift away from it? Or that he was incapable so had no choice BUT to make a shift?
c) Or That he made a calcullated shift away?

If so, how was that shift made? In what manner? For what reasons? When?
What has remained?


Cheers
Dan

Dan Harden
15th July 2008, 00:34
Peter

Since you appeared to be thinking of capacity/talent purely in terms of how O Sensei saw it, I suggested another alternative, which was that the son had the capacity, but chose to display it in different terms. Hence the father's angry outbursts on his occasional visits to the Aikikai Hombu.

Peter
Would you expand a bit on your thoughts regarding Kissomarus "capacity" as you called it? Are you speculating / guessing that had similar or matching capacity of his father in aiki, but chose to fashion the structure and waza we now see as Aikido? You had mentioned that in the same light of a generational shift.
If you are speculating that he did, why would you suppose he would hide it and not use it and instead rely on the syllabus of aikido he created? For that matter, why create it at all? Since you have had direct contact and the issue of secrecy is before us-any thoughts as to if, and why he did these things if his power was such that he didn't need to?
Or was it a "capacity" of a different nature you meant?

Cheers
Dan

henjoyuko
15th July 2008, 00:59
Hi Dan,

Well please keep in mind that my opinion probably isn't worth a whole lot. My experience with Daito Ryu (outside of what my teacher taught me) is observational rather than experiential and the same is true for O-sensei's waza.

D.H: "That said, while I have my own opinions on things-what are your views on the expressed difference in outcome of his waza?
a) Do you think he was incapable of expressing the waza more typically seen in DR? If not, why not?"

A.D.B: Typically seen in who's DR? (If I had my choice I'd say Takeda Sokaku's, but I'm S.O.L on that account I'm afraid!) Anyway, I'm guessing that he was perfectly capable for the following reasons: a) He seems to have studied with Takeda Sokaku the longest, b) He replicates many D.R. like waza and endings in the Noma Dojo pictures, many of which remain unpublished c) I was taught virtually all waza have a choice of endings (in and down, out and away). For the most part we learn the in and down ones first, but there are a few exceptions. Furthermore, there are choice of endings to the endings depending if nage is armed and intending to kill, unarmed and intending to kill, on down to preparations for tying.

D.H: b) Do you think he chose to make a shift away from it? Or that he was incapable so had no choice BUT to make a shift?

A.D.B. This is hard for me to even guess at with any accuracy. Clearly he taught both ways in, and during, the war. Post war he may have favored the more expansive approach a little, but judging from the stuff that Saito sensei knew and the style of practice in Iwama, I'm guessing not a ton. He probably did teach differently depending on the venue. I think this is already pretty clearly established.

(BTW, I think were a few folks that felt Ueshiba's power which, reportedly, could feel like a truck full of bricks, or piercing, or whatever, and tried to replicate it in their waza and training . . . but the quality of power they produced, and consequently their Aikido, was qualitatively different. I was taught that one should develop in such a way that one feels as though they are carefully holding back so as not to hurt their partner. If one has feels the need to extend physical effort to achieve a result, they aren't need more work.)

D.H: c) Or That he made a calcullated shift away?

A.D.B. Answering that question would presume that I know O-sensei's thoughts or intentions and I clearly don't. I do, however, suspect (as stated earlier) that he would often modify his presentation in accordance with his audience. We all do to one degree or another. It also seem clear though that O-sensei was pretty much an enigma wherever he went.

Well, there are my answers for what they are worth. Like I said, due to limited exposure I don't think they are really worth much.

Hope you are well,

Allen

henjoyuko
15th July 2008, 01:07
Peter


Peter
Would you expand a bit on your thoughts regarding Kissomarus "capacity" as you called it? Are you speculating / guessing that had similar or matching capacity of his father in aiki, but chose to fashion the structure and waza we now see as Aikido? You had mentioned that in the same light of a generational shift.
If you are speculating that he did, why would you suppose he would hide it and not use it and instead rely on the syllabus of aikido he created? For that matter, why create it at all? Since you have had direct contact and the issue of secrecy is before us-any thoughts as to if, and why he did these things if his power was such that he didn't need to?
Or was it a "capacity" of a different nature you meant?

Cheers
Dan

Hi Dan,

I wondered the same thing, which lead me to seek clarification. After his response, I thought Peter meant that Kisshomaru had other capacities and goals. But it will be nice to here what Peter has to say since, as you said, he had a personal relationship with Kishomaru.

Allen

Dan Harden
15th July 2008, 01:11
Hi Dan,

I wondered the same thing, which lead me to seek clarification. After his response, I thought Peter meant that Kisshomaru had other capacities and goals. But it will be nice to here what Peter has to say since, as you said, he had a personal relationship with Kishomaru.

Allen
He certainly has already offered some rather interesting opinions on things over on aikiweb and here. I think no matter the relationship, in the end, we may still be faced with only opnion and conjencture-no dis to Peter-I just wonder as to what depths Kissomaru would share, could share or had the capacity to share anything substative by way of a comparisons.
According to Stan there are things he would not speak of or share and they went with him to the end. It's the same with DR and also with the idea of Sokaku and Tokimune, with allot of opinions tossed around in private settings. In DR there things that some people will would love to see, but certain schools hold on to their piece of history.


I don't have time to respond to your thoughts-maybe not till the morning. Thanks for the reply though.

Cheers
Dan

henjoyuko
15th July 2008, 01:26
(BTW, I think were a few folks that felt Ueshiba's power which, reportedly, could feel like a truck full of bricks, or piercing, or whatever, and tried to replicate it in their waza and training . . . but the quality of power they produced, and consequently their Aikido, was qualitatively different. I was taught that one should develop in such a way that one feels as though they are carefully holding back so as not to hurt their partner. If one has feels the need to extend physical effort to achieve a result, they aren't need more work.)


Kind of weird to quote myself but I wanted to clarify what I wrote. Once again, the assumption I was taught to operate under was (multiple armed opponents with lethal intent). Consequently, if one has to exert normal physical power you are pretty much guaranteed of being dead shortly, because physical power takes to long. I use the analogy of a poke in the eye vs a slug in the face. I'm guessing that O-sensei had "poke in the eye" power, very little physical expenditure out, big results on the receiving end. And when you practice "poke in the eye" power one must carefully regulate what they do or they'll damage their partner unwittingly. I'm guessing that O-sensei had this because of all of the stories, it is what my teacher told me, and it is what I was taught . . . now only if I could LEARN it! :(

henjoyuko
15th July 2008, 01:42
OK one more thought . . . I was also taught to move like a swordsman, and think like a swordsman. (In order to do this one must know how to use a sword BTW and not a parody of the sword or whatever . . . ) This makes sense under the assumptions I already listed. If one wants to grapple in just about any form they are going to get sliced, or more likely stuck pretty quickly by buddy # 2, #3, etc.

Still, that works all fine and dandy (in theory) if one is also equipped with a sword (or an equivalent) because it is (for the most part) effective upon contact . . .but unarmed? Most folks aren't "effective upon contact" BUT WAIT! Haven't we heard of some art that is??? What could it be that gives an individual effectiveness upon contact such that that individual could productively move like a swordsman and think like a swordsman?

Hmmm? :eek:

(Of course my ambition in life is to be a Super Hero so . . . )

P Goldsbury
15th July 2008, 01:48
Good Morning, Allen,

Interesting post.

Have you come across Thomas Nadolski's PhD thesis on the Omoto suppressions? Nadolski presents a sustained examination of Omoto in its contemporary context and is a very useful corrective to the picture of Onisaburo Deguchi that we find in Kisshomaru's biography.

Nadolski mentions Ueshiba only once in his entire thesis, but the reference is pretty explosive. It is in a quote from the diaries of Kingoro Hashimoto, the military officer and Sakurakai member, who was tried as a Class A war criminal. Hashimoto led many of the assassinations against politicians in the early 1930s, including the Imperial Colors Incident of 1931, when he met Onisaburo Deguchi and the latter offered him the services of Ueshiba as a bodyguard. We need to be clear about this. Hashimoto was going off to assassinate a few government leaders and Ueshiba was going to protect him, not the leaders, from harm.

The Sakurakai was formed in Dec. 1930 and lasted until late 1931. Members met in Ueshiba's Kobukan dojo and civilians like Okawa Shumei, who, like Hashimoto, was behind a few assassinations, also attended these meetings. We know this from Ikkusai Iwata's interview with Stan Pranin.

There are one or two of Ueshiba's discourses from this period in the Budo magazine, which was the mouthpiece of the Omoto Zen Nippon Budo Senyokai, the paramilitary budo organization of which Deguchi was the President and Ueshiba the Chairman. (The training complex at Takeda was the headquarters.)

Nadolski provides a refreshing contemporary context to all this. Deguchi was in cohorts with all the leading ultra-nationalists and the reason for the second suppression was that he backed the lunatic-fringe radical officers of the Army's Kodo Faction, rather than the more rational and measured members of the Tosei Faction (one of whose members was Hideki Tojo), who wanted unity, in order to put Japan on a total war footing.

Now Deguchi disappeared from the scene in 1935 and did not reappear until the war was over. Ueshiba strengthened his association with the military from 1935 onwards and seems to have been relatively undamaged by the Omoto suppression. He had some very powerful military friends and taught at all the leading military schools as a result.

What was he teaching? Well, in the Kobukan it was obviously Daito-ryu. In the military schools? Something more approaching jujutsu. However, it is during this period, from 1921 to 1935, when he is working out his theories and the similarities between these and Omoto doctrine (the second phase--Reikai Monogatari) are very clear.

The problem with Morihei Ueshiba is that we do not have any of his writings produced at this time (except for the very ultrantionalist Budo Senyokai pieces mentioned earlier). All the discourses were made after the war, when everything, literally everything, had changed. His diaries? His detailed notes on Reikai Monogatari? No one knows where they are. I once asked the present Doshu and he mentioned something about piles of papers somewhere in the Hombu. I could hardly believe my ears.

The short piece which I translated (see the last few posts) appeared in the Aikikai newspaper and the lectures collected by Hideo Takahashi as Takemusu Aiki all appeared in the Byakko Shinko-kai magazine (this is Masahisa Goi's offshoot of Omoto). There is one long lecture where Ueshiba recounts his growing dissatisfaction with the Japanese military, which prompted his move to Iwama. The dissatisfaction is interspersed with visions and accounts of training with phantom swordsmen. These sentiments are a far cry from the days of the Sakurakai meetings in 1931, but over ten years passed between 1931 and 1942 and it is reasonable to think that Ueshiba changed. But all his discourses are postwar and those from the Aikikai were put out by his son Kisshomaru, who, I believe had an agenda of his own.

In my next three Aikiweb columns I go through Nadolski's thesis in detail and then examine the move to Iwama. However, I have stated all this now in view of Dan's questions. (Dan, I myself think that (b)--first part--and (c) are correct.)

Best wishes,

PAG

henjoyuko
15th July 2008, 05:04
Hi Peter,

No I hadn't come across Thomas Nadolski's PhD thesis on the Omoto suppressions but had heard of it (maybe from you earlier?) and purchased a copy tonight.

Another great post.

Hope your day goes well for you,
Allen

cxt
15th July 2008, 20:45
Forgive me if someone already mentioned it---but didn't someone mention a chance encounter with the former headmaster of the Nakano spy school at a aikido demo in one of their books?

(maybe Ellis Amdur?)

The man said that Ueshiba "grabbed" people thew them down and said "this is how you finish them off."

He was commenting on the differences he saw in the demo and what he saw at what was being taught at the school.

One of the post in the last several days reminded me of it.

Again, sorry if its redundent. :)