Tanren Uchi In Aikido Sword Practice

[Yamantaka]

Dear friends,

I got this from an aikidoka friend about Aikiken sword practice in the Tanren Uchi. I have my own opinion but I would like very much to hear from more experienced people. Since it involves also Aikido, I've put this question also in the Aikido Forum.
Opinion will be welcome
Yamantaka
###################################################################


“You must use all your body when you cut (AWASE), specially your feet, hips, shoulders, hands and the point of your ken, since the beginning of the cut, during it and at the end of it.
Other sword schools emphasize other aspects but the Aikiken developed in Iwama by Aikido’s founder, as taught by Saito Sensei, in its purest form, studies AWASE, something that, as all aikidoka knows is very difficult to develop.
First we develop our inner awase or body and mind awase and later the awase between we and the others.
The reason we put the tanren uchi one or two fingers below our navel is to complete the cut in all its totality so we may study the cut and not just a common strike.
The height must be measured with the student standing, that is, when he cuts, he should adjust his position, lowering his hips in the posture known as KEN GA GOSHI (sword hips), keeping the basic central Hanmi, in order that, at the end, the Tanren is a little above the tanden so the cut will end in front of the tanden because of the rubber pressure against our hands.
This kind of cut should be imagined as if we were opening an adversary with armor. Miyamoto Musashi wrote about that, i.e., it’s a different cut from the one performed in Kendo with Shinai. In that case, the emphasis is on speed, timing and focus. This is not so important in Iwama Ryu where the importance lies in striking (as in the jo) or in cutting the adversary to enfeeble him. A simple cut hardly would stop an enemy decided to go on...
That is : to cut with KIMOTCHI (feeling) and, in the end, when lowering our hips, keeping the body in awase and with Ken Ga Goshi, feeling the natural pression of the tire, we should not fight it but due to the action of our left arm, extended with Kokyu in our right arm, with Shime and the pressure of both our hands in the Ken, Kime will naturally develop, reinforced by the tire’s return movement. We should try to keep the tire below and not allow the tire’s return to raise our ken, proceeding with our cuts. We must do that carefully, without excess, in order to avoid harm to our elbows. Finally, in Migi Hanmi, our two arms should be extended and our hips lowered (bent).
Another important point to avoid damage to our body is keeping our hands together to avoid na excess of vibration up through the arms, which might harm the column and our back. We should begin slowly and carefully increase our repetitions in order to avoid bad habits and lesions.
It’s important to have someone experienced to teach us the correct form and explain the important points.
I believe, by my own experience, that incorrectly done this training might provoke lesions and develop incorrect postures.
We should join body and spirit and so, naturally, study and develop KIAI, not necessarily as a sound but as an important form in our study.
To conclude, if we train correctly the Tanren Uchi, our Aikido will improve in all aspects, specially in our Taijutsu. Techniques like Tai no Henko and Morote Dori Kokyu Ho were seen, in Iwama, by the Founder and are still seen by Iwama people, as the Method for Sword Cutting.”

##################################################################

What do you think?

[Yamantaka]

Hello!
No answers yet??? :(

[Tony Peters]

Ubaldo,
I guessing that many others have discoverd that Aikido priciples don't really apply to Koryu arts. And that they are often at odds with them. I know I personally found it(aikido)counter productive to my Koryu practice. YMMV
Peace
Tony

[Yamantaka]

Originally posted by Tony Peters
Ubaldo,
I guessing that many others have discoverd that Aikido priciples don't really apply to Koryu arts. And that they are often at odds with them.

YAMANTAKA : Why?

Originally posted by Tony Peters
I know I personally found it(aikido)counter productive to my Koryu practice. YMMV
Peace
Tony

YAMANTAKA : Why?

Please, explain it better.
Best regards

[Tony Peters]

Originally posted by Yamantaka


YAMANTAKA : Why?

Please, explain it better.
Best regards

For me the intent is/was different and the Ma-ai that I was used to was not conductive for comfortable aikido (mostly for others). Remember Aikido at heart is about protecting your UKE..the Koryu that I have seen have no such principle. I also prefer weapons work that has real martial intent not a training tool. I discussed this at length befor the Crash. I don't find Aikido bad in any way it's just not what I need right now. There are aspects of my present training that work much better for me than Aikido ever has.

[Yamantaka]

Originally posted by Tony Peters
For me the intent is/was different and the Ma-ai that I was used to was not conductive for comfortable aikido (mostly for others). Remember Aikido at heart is about protecting your UKE..the Koryu that I have seen have no such principle. I also prefer weapons work that has real martial intent not a training tool. I discussed this at length befor the Crash. I don't find Aikido bad in any way it's just not what I need right now. There are aspects of my present training that work much better for me than Aikido ever has.

YAMANTAKA : Thank you, Tony. A last question : specifically about Tanren Uchi practice, do you find the same incompatibilities between Aikido and Koryu Kenjutsu?
Best

[Nuutti Kotivuori]

Originally posted by Yamantaka
Dear friends,

I got this from an aikidoka friend about Aikiken sword practice in the Tanren Uchi. I have my own opinion but I would like very much to hear from more experienced people. Since it involves also Aikido, I've put this question also in the Aikido Forum.
Opinion will be welcome
Yamantaka


Well - a short opinion: Sounds like a nice aikido or aikiken practice.

I am a bit unsure what kind of a response you would want about it though. Comparisons to other arts? Is it "good"? Will it teach sword? Will it teach unarmed?

The mechanics of movement are different between koryu schools - as are the ways to handle a sword. There are fatal incompatibilities between koryu schools - and between koryu schools and aikido. But that's all that they really are, different. Often there's also a difference in goals. Most of the aikiken I have seen has been geared towards teaching aikido better, not teaching sword as such. To say anything more would venture into the realm of "combat effectiveness" and such - which is an entirely different comparison again.

[Tony Peters]

Originally posted by Yamantaka


YAMANTAKA : Thank you, Tony. A last question : specifically about Tanren Uchi practice, do you find the same incompatibilities between Aikido and Koryu Kenjutsu?
Best

What Nuutti wrote sems to answer most of your question rather nicely for me so I'll just add my thoughts there is a difference between Hamni and Kamae. Though at this stage in my study exactly what that difference is I'm neither sure of nor qualified to realy identify.
I have done Tanren Uchi practice with a qualified Iwama weapons instructor (so I wasn't talking out my a$$ before) and what I remember of it realy isn't anything that works with what I am presently doing. There may be Koryu styles that it works for but in my limited study I have not seen any.

[Yamantaka]

Thanks for all the answers so far. Most people seems to think about comparisons between Aikido and Koryu. That wasn't my point. The emphasis in my question was about the practice of Tanren Uchi and its possible similarities or dissimilarities between Koryu and Aikiken.
Tony Peters came closer to answer that in his last post but a clarification is still hoped for. Is the practice of sword on Tanren Uchi correct or not from the viewpoint of Koryu Kenjutsu?
I hope more answers will come.
Best

[Nuutti Kotivuori]

Originally posted by Yamantaka
Is the practice of sword on Tanren Uchi correct or not from the viewpoint of Koryu Kenjutsu?

I don't think I managed to make this clear the last time.

There is no general Koryu Kenjutsu which could say if something is correct or not. What is correct or not differs between every ryu. I bet you can find atleast one of both - a koryu that says it is correct - and a koryu that says it is not.

For what it's worth, I can say that I've personally had to unlearn many things I have learned in aikiken - they have been incorrect from the viewpoint of koryu kenjutsu for me. But I still consider them useful practices - just different.

I hope this clears up the confusion?

[Yamantaka]

Originally posted by Nuutti Kotivuori
There is no general Koryu Kenjutsu which could say if something is correct or not. What is correct or not differs between every ryu. I bet you can find atleast one of both - a koryu that says it is correct - and a koryu that says it is not.
I hope this clears up the confusion?

YAMANTAKA : Unfortunately no, it doesn't. I'm not looking for specific points, private to some Koryu or to some aikido styles. I'm talking about common ground. For instance, if Aikiken striked with the other side of the blade, that possibly would be improper for every type of Koryu. Also the height of the Tanren Uchi in Aikiken (see my first e-mail) might be improper from the viewpoint of every Ryu Ha. Did I make myself clear?
Sorry if I insist but I still have doubts...
Best regards

[Yamantaka]

Originally posted by Tony Peters
I have done Tanren Uchi practice with a qualified Iwama weapons instructor (so I wasn't talking out my a$$ before) and what I remember of it realy isn't anything that works with what I am presently doing.

YAMANTAKA : Exactly why and in which way?

Originally posted by Tony Peters
There may be Koryu styles that it works for but in my limited study I have not seen any.

YAMANTAKA : Please, could you explain why specifically Aikiken Tanren Uchi doesn't work for most Koryu styles ?
Hoping to understand

[Tony Peters]

Tanren Uchi is basicly a tool that teaches the concept of returning to center. Even in Seitei iai returning to a center point isn't necessarilly the point.

[Yamantaka]

Originally posted by Tony Peters
Tanren Uchi is basicly a tool that teaches the concept of returning to center. Even in Seitei iai returning to a center point isn't necessarilly the point.

YAMANTAKA : Dear Tony,
Thank you very much for your answer. But, AFAIK, Tanren Uchi means "To forge striking", a practice involved in striking something as opposed to striking empty air. It develops position and feeling (of resistance). I never heard the concept of "returning to center" and you, yourself, stated that "even in Seitei Iai that was not necessarily the point".
I confess that confused me. Tanren Uchi is a common practice in Aikiken and in Koryu or just in aikiken? Or it is not used in Koryu (the reason that, "even in Seitei Iai", it hasn't the same meaning as in Aikiken" ?
Could you explain it a bit more for me?
Sorry if I'm pestering you
Best

[Tony Peters]

Aikido works by bringing another persons center to yours, blending with it and then protecting them as you ground out their center. Aikiweapons are tools to learn Aiki taijutsu techniques not to learn weapons techniques. Yes in Tanren uchi means to forge striking but your are cutting to the same place using aiki principles linking breath, spirit and body. All well and good but not the way most Koryu opperate (at least from what I have seen and read). It is an exercise for tai jutsu not for Kenjutsu. Aiki priciples work in Aiki arts they were a hinderance and dangerous for me when I expanded outside the aikido world. A lot of time I had to spend unlearning...even the Tanren uchi techniques, as it totally screws up my cutting ability, forcing too much power into the cut and not allowing the blade to work.

[shinchaku]

I think it might be important to specify what systems of Aikido you are reffering to, rather than lump them all together.
In Yoshinkan Aikido the bukiwaza comes from various koryu backgrounds. The Aikiken of Yoshinkan comes from Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, the Aikijo as taught be Kimeda Sensei ( Yoshinkan Canada ) comes from Shinden Muso Ryu.
I trained under Kimeda Sensei for several years, and while he did not enforce the combative ablicability of Aikiken, he always maintained that swordsmanship was meant for more than just learning center, and perfecting our taijutsu. We were taught that above all it is important to be able to cut well, and strongly in order to be profficient in both Aikiken, and taijutsu.
While I cannot speak of how other systems view and use aikiken, I felt it important to point out that treating the sword and aikido as some kind of difficiency in the school is not always so.

[Nuutti Kotivuori]

Originally posted by Yamantaka


YAMANTAKA : Unfortunately no, it doesn't. I'm not looking for specific points, private to some Koryu or to some aikido styles. I'm talking about common ground. For instance, if Aikiken striked with the other side of the blade, that possibly would be improper for every type of Koryu. Also the height of the Tanren Uchi in Aikiken (see my first e-mail) might be improper from the viewpoint of every Ryu Ha. Did I make myself clear?

Common ground? I'm afraid that would require intricate knowledge of all the ryuha in existence. Maybe someone here could give a good guess at that. Finding common ground between different koryu kenjutsu ryu is not a simple thing.

But, even so, I am pretty sure that you indeed can find a koryu that does this sort of practice - and hence doesn't consider it improper. And I am very sure that you can indeed find a koryu that just about abhors this kind of sword use. If this is the case - that you can find one of both - then there is no common ground on this issue upon which to make a "correct" or "incorrect" statement.

And you probably realize this already, but this is simply a practice; a drill. And that makes it very hard to classify as "correct" or "incorrect". If it makes better the person a better swordman or have better taijutsu, why wouldn't it be "correct"? If, on the other hand, it were taught as a method to attack an opponent, things would be a lot different. If, for example, they were to say "This cut is used to open up an armored opponent from top to the navel.", I would consider that as atleast very weird way of doing it and would definitely doubt it's effectiveness. But they don't say that, they say "This kind of cut should be imagined as if we were opening an adversary with armor." The important word is "imagine". The cut is not meant for an armored opponent, but you should imagine that, because it gives you a proper feeling when doing the excercise.

I have a friend who has been doing Takemusu aikido and is has probably done this excercise many more times than I have. I will ask her explanations and opinions about the matter the next time we happen to see each other.

Sorry if I insist but I still have doubts...

Ah but this is a part of the problem. You have a kind of a hidden agenda - something you doubt or wish to be proven true or untrue. Without knowing this we are poking in the air and hoping we hit an answer that is sufficient. I'm not blaming you for this - I wouldn't be answering if I didn't want to - just pointing it out.

[Tony Peters]

and one I hadn't thought of...sorry about that my experience with aikido has been Aikikai, Iwama and Ki society. What I have stated is based on what I have seen in those systems. However there weapons systems come from various koryu systems as well. A question on the weapons work you mentioned Is it practiced in it's original (koryu) form or have the weapons systems been adapted (aikified) to fit within aikido principles? If so then though based on Koryu they really no longer are and that is an impostant point. I understand that the Yosh styles of aikido is a bit more on the martial side than some of the other styles and this may allow for a more martial intent to the weapons work. I don't know and won't say as I have never seen either the Aikido or the weapons work that you speak of. I know of at least one Iwama styles weapons teacher who also teaches Iai and his cut with a boken are differnet than those that don't so maybe it the fact that he also spends time with a real blade. But Iai is not Kenjutsu. In the end you will just have to try a Koryu and see if what you learned in Aiki weapons helps or hurts there is no way that the few who have had training in both can provide you with the answer you desire. I will say this I have had the oppurtunaty to observe about a dozen ryu doing Demo's and none had the serious observation to stoping a cut in one specific place as aiki ken and tanren uchi has. Some cuts stop at the shoulder others the ground...that's combat not aiki. And there is a vast difference

[Yamantaka]

YAMANTAKA : Originally posted by Nuutti Kotivuori
Ah but this is a part of the problem. You have a kind of a hidden agenda - something you doubt or wish to be proven true or untrue. Without knowing this we are poking in the air and hoping we hit an answer that is sufficient. I'm not blaming you for this - I wouldn't be answering if I didn't want to - just pointing it out.

YAMANTAKA : Dear Nuutti (I love those finnish names...),
I DO have a "kind of hidden agenda" and I have stressed it in my first post : I got an e-mail from an aikidoka friend and I had some doubts on his points (if that kind of tanren uchi training was correct and what would be the opinion of Kenjutsu practitioners and Aikido practitioners, the reason I posted this thread in both sub-forums. Nothing came out of the Aikido Forum...). Nothing else.
I would like to point out that :
a) I know the differences between Aikido (and his many styles) and Koryu (and its many Ryu Ha) and I'm not specifically interested in that. Aikidoka have stated many times that their sword practice is for improving their kenjutsu. To each his own;
b) My question is just about the Tanren Uchi practice, if it does exist in Koryu or not and if it does what are the similarities and dissimilarities between them;
c) when I talked about "Common Grounds", I mentioned what they would be. A tool for striking with a sword is a common ground. It does not matter if it is Aikiken or Koryu. You are striking at something. What I asked was : "Is it a correct way for striking at something in your viewpoint (Koryu AND aiki) or not"? I didn't ask if it was koryu or Aikido and if one was combative and the other not. Just this : Is it a correct way for striking in your opinion and If it isn't, exactly why not? Everybody who answered, has been vague, just saying : "In my opinion...", "It was innapropriate for Koryu...", etc... Yes, but exactly why?

Anyone who feels this has gone too far, please, feel free to stop participating in this thread. And Nuutti, believe me, I have no hidden agenda (that's just your impression) and I'm absolutely sincere. And to be correctly understood, I must say that I'm no aikidoka, from any style. My son is basically an Aikikai fellow, with experience in Tomiki, Ten Chi International, some Iwama training and a few odds and ends. I'm just an interested guy, seeking information and hoping to get some. Read my posts with care and, if you can and wish, try to help me.
Thanks to everyone
Best

[Nuutti Kotivuori]

Originally posted by Yamantaka
What I asked was : "Is it a correct way for striking at something in your viewpoint (Koryu AND aiki) or not"? I didn't ask if it was koryu or Aikido and if one was combative and the other not. Just this : Is it a correct way for striking in your opinion and If it isn't, exactly why not? Everybody who answered, has been vague, just saying : "In my opinion...", "It was innapropriate for Koryu...", etc... Yes, but exactly why?

In my opinion, you are still mixing two things. On the other half, you are talking about a "correct way for striking at something" - and on the other hand, you are talking about Tanren Uchi - which is a practice - a drill - training. I do not see Tanren Uchi as a way to strike at something, maybe some people do, but I don't. Hence there's a terrible problem for me to say that there's something incorrect about it - because it teaches people something and it's very hard to say if that is good or not.

But, if we set that aside for a moment - I'll try to answer your question.

I haven't done Tanren Uchi in Koryu. Personally, I do not see Tanren Uchi as a correct way of striking at something. For example because a straight vertical cut is too vulnerable to deflections and evasions. Also, there's often very little reason to cut deeply - people die from less. And cutting armor, especially in combat, is very hard - so trying it is pretty much pointless.

But as I said, I think it is just a training exercise.

[Yamantaka]

Originally posted by Nuutti Kotivuori


I do not see Tanren Uchi as a way to strike at something, maybe some people do, but I don't.
I haven't done Tanren Uchi in Koryu. Personally, I do not see Tanren Uchi as a correct way of striking at something. For example because a straight vertical cut is too vulnerable to deflections and evasions. Also, there's often very little reason to cut deeply - people die from less. And cutting armor, especially in combat, is very hard - so trying it is pretty much pointless.
But as I said, I think it is just a training exercise.

YAMANTAKA : Thank you, Nuutti. That was your best post so far. I think we've come closest to common understanding.
Best