Daito-ryu - Gendai or Koryu?

[Jeff Cook]

Is Daito Ryu aikijujutsu as it is practiced today a gendai or koryu art?

First define gendai and koryu, then apply that definition to how the art is presented/practiced today.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[Sheridan]

Definition of Gendai as it applies to Daito-ryu, Sokaku- Sensei created Daito-ryu.
Definition of Koryu as it applies to Daito-ryu, Sokaku-Sensei merely rebuilt Daito-ryu, it's really close to eight hundred years old.
This is the biggest schism within AikiJJ folk today. Gendai or Koryu is totally dependant on which version of history you believe. Every person has their own theory and usually will express them vehemently.

PS.: I'm totally after crash as an e-budo member, but I'm pretty sure this was one of the causes of the aiki-wars that took place BC. Good luck with the can of worms Mr. Cook!:wave:

[Ray Coleman]

Gentlemen,

Gendai is means present-era (ie: post 1868-Meiji) and koryu means old-school (ie: pre 1868-Meiji). Daito Ryu was foundedn by Sokaku Takeda so it would have to be a gendai art, but definetly still a combat system.

If Daito Ryu is 800 years old (?) that would make it older than Tenshin Katori Shinto Ryu, Japan's historically proven oldest extant martial ryu. This would mean that Daito Ryu would have been founded around 200-AD, before the martial culture of the Bushi had risen. Imperial troopers and other fighting men would have been using the Ken (tsurigi) type sword from China (as the tachi shape hadn't been developed as yet), wearing continental type lamellar armour and carrying continental socket type lances and pole-arms. The Heian-era hadn't even started yet.

The earliest that I've heard that Daito Ryu was established is the 1000's, founded by Minamoto Yoshimitsu. This is usually always touted by Aikido practitioners who try to prove how far back Aikido can be traced.

Sincerely,

R. Coleman

[Cady Goldfield]

Hm. I guess you could say that the English language goes back around 1,000 years. But I daresay that if you were to hear native speakers of English from, say, 900 CE, you would not be able to understand 98% of the words, nevermind the syntax. Speakers of Old German might have better luck. :) Hey, go read your Shakespeare and see how Elizabethan English sounds to you. Even Victorian-era English is full of stuff that has since vanished from the vernacular and even formal language.

So, Daito-ryu might have had roots going back 1,000 years, but each generation adds, deletes, accidentally omits or corrupts the art...or refines it. Some things get imported into it from elsewhere. In fact, one of my favorite conjectures is that some of the deepest principles may even have come from China long ago, because it just ain't likely that some of the things could have been plumbed to their depths in just a few generations.

We stand on the shoulders of generations and generations of learners and innovators.

Cady

[Edited by Cady Goldfield on 10-12-2000 at 07:02 PM]

[CKohalyk]

Ho-i!

Isn't Chikubujima-ryu dated to something like 1100?

CK

[kusanku]

I've always found it interesting that Daito- Ryu looks so much like some forms of Chinese Chin Na.

But then ,so do European grappling and locking techniques done in armor, as found at http://www.thehaca.com in the manuals section, and those are 1,000 years old and eight hundred years old, and so forth.

I suppose when you are an armored fighter in close quarters combat, certain things do become necessary at times, and later become formalized and are taught.

In modern European fencing, it is very forbidden to grab the opponent's blade, or was in duelling at least.

But on olde battlefields that is just what people did to survive.A grab, a twist, a lock, and a finishing blow, the coup de grace, and the fight, it was , over.

So in Daito ryu, does one not think that the Japanese would have borrowed techniques from the Chinese, whom culturally, were the source for most far Eastern cultures anyway?

Yes, the Chinese, as did the Europeans , did a lot of in depth research and book compilation on their different techniques,and many of both of these could easily have wound up in Japan.

Take a look at those Medieval fechtbuchen(fight books) and witness hundreds of emty of bare handed techniques against unarmed and armed opponent's, some armored as well.

See the German Monk's sword training manual that also contains tai sabaki, daito ryu type locks, and atemi against sword wielding opponent's in armor against barefoot monks in robes.

From many, many centuries ago.

Witness the Knight's thousand year old martial arts, with techniques absolutely guaranteed the most ancient verifiable combat waza you ever saw, and try a few.

How old is Daito Ryu or even Aikijiujitsu? I don't now. But Chin Na goes backcenturies n China, and the same techniques are also found as far back as twelve hundred years ago in germany.Documented.

Want real koryu, check some of that out.

[MarkF]

Hi, Popie,
First of all, your post didn't come near being off-topic so I doubt it would have been deleted. I've seen posts, such as in the aiki threads go so far off, as to begin a discussion of professional wrestling (puroresu), and how MA played a hand in that.

Also, this is not the first time the question has been asked, but I can assure all of those who are PC (post crash) that this was merely a ripple in the aiki war, one of the best discussions I've had the pleasure (Cady won't say so, but she was the moderator and the opening salvo was hers: "Daito ryu: Esoteric or Pragamtic?" was the opening topic then.), etc.

Funny you should bring up "koryu golf," Popie, as here in New Mexico there is a tournment every year in areas where there are no fairways, no rough, no (artificial) hazards, or greens; no grass at all. It is rocks, weeds, cattle skulls and the accompaning results of wild life, and hard as hard dirt can be. There are holes, and these are the real thing, as well. About the only thing modern about it, are the people and their tools.

This argument of koryu or gendai is rather new, as even the words themselves would both have to be called gendai. As far as I can tell, this change in reference from new to classic MA is probably no older than five or six years, with the attending argument being somewhat older, but not much. In the early sixties, jujutsu was discussed as the original schools of all Japanese martial arts, and while there certainly were some older than others, was accepted, and almost never argued. Sokey dokeys were rare, although they existed, but this received no more than the casual acceptance of certain schools being older than others. The politics of it, older than the language of discussion, really didn't take off until the late seventies or early eighties. Granted, Bruce Lee caused a lot of this, but not purposely, but because he popularized something unknowingly. Perhaps it came with a zeal to train instead of talking about it, or perhaps, in there own, sleazy ways, the soaky-dokeys, were responsible because it made some obtain proof of their claims, I don't know for sure.

Anyway, it is a silly argument, only because there are now cutoff dates (1868), something which did exist, but wasn't a matter of discussion. Diane Skoss puts the year exactly there, as a date became necessary. I doubt it was so clear then, but limits being what they are, this was necessary.

Anything before 1868 was koryu, and anything later was gendai. Also, the rule was that those which did not engage in sport or contest helped to define it, but even Ms. Skoss had to modify this when the case of kyujutsu/kyudo was brought up, then it was arts in which sport or winning/losing was not the aim, and fit the date well, were koryu. Sad when you must date something which doesn't really need it, but in these discussions, or when asking for bona fides of instructors, it seems to be necessary.

But I also think people have learned something by this so I don't think it is a waste of time per se. This one thing has pushed some into researching the subjects to a degree which may not have been done, or at least known, as well as it is today. I've had students bring questions to me which I've had to bring home and research a bit, but it has enhanced my knowledge to a degree, so it was not a wasted effort.

But the real discussion now should be centered on how it effects one in his/her training, or how much research is necessary. It seems we are stuck with many variations on a theme and I wish I could be an immortal fly on the wall another century from now. Will those newer arts move into the classical school area?

Something to think about, anyway. Some of us day dream too little, and kids probably should have time scheduled, as they do with play, the other arts, these arts, ad infinitum. One or two hours of day dreaming should be required of kids as anything else required, but not understood by them yet.

Mark

[Nathan Scott]

Hi,

Personally, I have given up debating this subject for lack of difinitive evidence to clearly support Daito ryu as a koryu. That's not to say that it's not, just that there doesnt appear to be enough hard evidence to convince researchers that this is a fact. There is a gap in the family line presented by researchers that is significant, though it is entirely possible the art was still being transmitted.

In fact technically, there is a gap right now.

Daito ryu was passed from Takeda Sokaku to Takeda Tokimune. Takeda Tokimune adopted the Iemoto system, and did not clearly name a successor for Soke. There have been substitutes, and temporary fillers, and even what some consider to be a "Soke in training" who was a grandson to Tokimune S., but for right now there is a one generation gap. Kondo Sensei is recognized as the "keeper of the mainline", but not the family head.

But, the art is still being transmitted, right?

Anyway, the reason people are concerned with koryu or gendai in general is because it has been submitted that any art that was founded after the days of warring and military govenment could not have been battle-tested, and therefore there is no way for the current exponents to test and confirm their techniques of war (with traditional weapons).

The haitorei imposed and finalized in 1868 during the Meiji restoration called for the dissolve of the Samurai class. All people were pronounced equal in status, top knots were cut off and wearing swords in public was banned. It could be said that Koryu ceased being significantly developed after this time for these reasons.

Mr. Amdur mentioned something about 400 years of peace (during the Tokugawa jidai, I guess). Many historians believe that most koryu that are extant today were founded during this time anyway. The less wars, the less survivors to teach of their experiences. Also, likely less of an emphasis on martial study as a result.

On the other hand, modern martial arts that specialize in self defense and arresting techniques are a different story, as they are used by professionals and are tested still in the line of duty. Whether this issue affects your art or not depends on what is being taught; classical weapons and tactics, or post-Meiji weapons and tactics.

So those that study a koryu that can not trace *at least* back previous to the 1868 (which is actually generous. I forget the date of the last war/incursion in which armor and traditional weapons were still imployed. Perhaps the battle of Sekigahara in 1600?) are often concerned that the principles and tactics that are in their style of classical-type warfare is in fact untested. It does not matter that the methods may have been adopted from older traditions that are koryu.

Those that can say with confidence that their art is a documentable koryu tend to have a bit of comfort and pride in believing that the principles being taught have been tested and are not simply theory - even though this may or may not in fact be the case.

Also, the methods of transmitting the arts in koryu are also quite different from modern arts; in fact in some ways opposed.

There are modern (post-1868) ryu-ha that have been founded. Researchers probably like to differentiate between koryu and gedai ryu-ha. That is probably why you hear the term koryu so much these days.

Whether this is a subject that needs to be argued, I don't know. Personally, I don't desire to hash it out unless something conclusive can be reached.

However, I wouldn't say that it is a silly subject of no consequence.

Hope this helps,






[Edited by Nathan Scott on 10-13-2000 at 03:14 PM]

[yamatodamashii]

Mr. Scott, that was probably the best explanation of this that I have ever come across. You make me wish that I had started coming to this forum sooner.

[yamatodamashii]

Originally posted by Nathan Scott


The reason people are concerned with koryu or gendai in general is because it has been submitted that any art that was founded after the days of warring and military govenment could not have been battle-tested, and therefore there is no way for the current exponents to test and confirm their techniques of war (with traditional weapons).

The haitorei imposed and finalized in 1868 during the Meiji restoration called for the dissolve of the Samurai class. All people were pronounced equal in status, top knots were cut off and wearing swords in public was banned. It could be said that Koryu ceased being significantly developed after this time for these reasons.

Mr. Amdur mentioned something about 400 years of peace (during the Tokugawa jidai, I guess). Many historians believe that most koryu that are extant today were founded during this time anyway. The less wars, the less survivors to teach of their experiences. Also, likely less of an emphasis on martial study as a result.

On the other hand, modern martial arts that specialize in self defense and arresting techniques are a different story, as they are used by professionals and are tested still in the line of duty. Whether this issue affects your art or not depends on what is being taught; classical weapons and tactics, or post-Meiji weapons and tactics.

So those that study a koryu that can not trace *at least* back previous to the 1868 (which is actually generous. I forget the date of the last war/incursion in which armor and traditional weapons were still imployed. Little help?) are often concerned that the principles and tactics that are in their style of classical-type warfare is in fact untested. It does not matter that the methods may have been adopted from older traditions that are koryu.

Those that can say with confidence that their art is a documentable koryu tend to have a bit of comfort and pride in believing that the principles being taught have been tested and are not simply theory - even though this may or may not in fact be the case.

Also, the methods of transmitting the arts in koryu are also quite different from modern arts; in fact in some ways opposed.

There are modern (post-1868) ryu-ha that have been founded. Researchers probably like to differentiate between koryu and gedai ryu-ha. That is probably why you hear the term koryu so much these days.





Hey, Mr. Scott--

Would you mind if I posted this onto my website? Properly annotated, of course.

[Edited by yamatodamashii on 10-16-2000 at 04:00 AM]

[Nathan Scott]

Would you mind if I posted this onto my website? Properly annotated, of course.

Sure, I'd be flattered. Glad it made some sense!

For the record, and to spare possible confusion, the "haitorei" that banned wearing swords was enacted in 1876. The Meiji period restoration involved a series of laws that were enacted over a course of years. The exact dividing point year may of koryu/gendai might vary some depending on who you talk to, but most put it at the end of the 1800's.

I'll throw up some more data about this if I have time to shuffle through my notes (On the other hand - Joe?).

Regards,

[yamatodamashii]

It's up now, if you want to check it out. :)

Thanks!

msnhomepages.talkcity.com/rightway/yamato_damashii

[Edited by yamatodamashii on 10-16-2000 at 04:00 PM]

[O'Neill]

I think that it is sad that so many records of the aizu clan were burned/destroyed- I am sure that many valuable documents relating to their bugei were included. Looking at the vast curriculum of daito ryu, it becomes clear that the art predates Takeda sensei. No other sogo budo was founder in one generation and it was apparent that Takeda had the widest base of knowledge that could be possible. Just look at the various groups (takumakai,maineline,kodokai,etc). Those teaches come from Takeda and his knowledge seems to have been unlimited in the truest sense of the word.

[Rei Ho]

Hello. I am not trying to create a flame war or anything like that. Really! I am curious about how various people feel about this subject. I know there are various people out there that practice various types of Daito Ryu. I know there are various people out there that dispute various claims of this teacher or that teacher. I know this may have been discussed before, but I don't live on the internet. What I am curious about is whether various people on this site feel it is or isn't a koryu. I have talked with people who train in Japan, or have trained in the past, and they have mixed opinions, but they all feel it is very good. Like in Serge Mol's book, he stated that they have been unable to prove some things, but it is hard to distinquish them from other Koryu. From what I see, a lot of the techniques are very close. I read Daito Ryu Aikijutsu by Stanley Pranin. It was good. I also read various sites. It sure has a wide variety of weapons most people don't practice as well. When I see a list like Yari,Naginata,Bo,Hanbo,Various Swords,Jutte, I have to wonder. What are your thoughts on whether it is Koryu or not. I am really interested in points of vire from people who have trained or train in Japan. Yeh, I am interested in anyones opinion, as long as it is done with good and kind motives. Thanks.
Tracy Crocker:cool:

[THREADS MERGED. NS]

[Arman]

Oh brother. :rolleyes:

Not again. Please, not again.

Seriously, I think there are some looong threads on this issue somewhere in history that you should be able to drag up, if you look deep enough.

Regards,
Arman Partamian

[Nathan Scott]

Tracy,

I've merged your thread with the existing one. Please have a look through this thread for previous comments about this subject.

Also, you might check these threads as well:

Origin of Daito-ryu (http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17048)

Origins of Aikijujutsu? (http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14437)

Ref: Ellis Amdurs article (http://143.207.8.139/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=22&t=000054) (Aikido Journal thread)

Traditional vs Modern (http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15405)

Regards,

[Rei Ho]

Sorry guy. Makes the second time I have done this. I thought I was starting a new thread, but the answer was answered anyway I see. Thanks guys. Nathan Scott, good job man! I learn from everybody. Thanks again.
Tracy Crocker:cool:

[Rei Ho]

You are the man!
Tracy Crocker:cool:

[Nathan Scott]

In the interest of documenting more information (as opposed to attempting to push a position in one way or the other), I submit the following.

Many of you know that there are basically three well respected and big umbrella organizations in Japan that oversee classical martial arts. They are:

1) Nippon Kobudo Kyokai (Japan Classical Martial Arts Association)
2) Nippon Kobudo Shinkokai (Japan Classical Martial Arts Preservation Society)
3) Nippon Budokan (Japan Martial Arts Hall)

The following branches of Daito-ryu have or still currently are members and officers in the following organizations:

Nippon Kobudo Kyokai:
- Kondo Katsuyuki, Daito-ryu Shinbukan. Regular member.
- Kondo Katsuyuki, Daito-ryu Shinbukan. Membership supervisor (Kanji).

Nippon Kobudo Shinkokai:
- Kondo Katsuyuki, Daito-ryu Shinbukan. Member of the Board of Directors (Riji).
- Mori Hakaru, Daito-ryu Takumakai. Member of the Board of Directors (Riji).

There is a lot of debate outside of Japan as to whether Daito-ryu is koryu or not, but the fact is, at least two major branches have involvement in the two top classical organizations in Japan; the art is consistently demonstrated at koryu enbukai in Japan; and is included in many koryu publications. Examples would include the book "Nippon no Kobudo", published by the Nippon Budokan; the renowned "Bugei Ryu-ha Dai-jiten" by Watatani Kiyoshi, "Hiden Koryu Jujutsu Giho" by Hirakami Nobuyuki, and many other research/historical books on koryu. Daito-ryu was also the first art to be filmed for the Nippon Budokan's now-famed "Nippon no Kobudo" documentary video series.

Both of these organizations are known to do a throrough examination of the arts that apply with them before allowing membership. Also, both of these organizations were deeply involved in moderating the politics between Kondo/Takeda Tokimune Sensei and their detractors, and ruled in favor of Kondo & Tokimune based on the evidence presented to them.

On the other hand, granted, figures like Kondo Sensei have a lot of money and influence, both of which surely help to get recognized by organizations such as the NKK and NKS. Also, I should note that not every art included in their membership is "koryu" - from an historian's viewpoint at least (not founded prior to the Meiji restoration). Toyama-ryu, for example, was founded in 1925, but was a member of the NKS at least ca. 1990-1995, and Nakamura Taizaburo was a member of their board of directors representing Toyama-ryu.

In conclusion, I think it is safe to say that, based on probably a number of factors, authorities in Japan do include Daito-ryu in the koryu/classical category, from if nothing else, a practitioner's view point.

Regards,

[Nathan Scott]

Re-posted from the Aikido Journal Discussion Forums (posted: 4/2/2004):

I don't claim to have any hard answers to this subject, and don't necessarily disagree with what Ellis has to say about it. What Ellis proposes is definitely one possible scenario (that of misunderstanding what the "traditional" methods in DR/Aikido represent historically).

There are other possibilities and factors though that I'd like to offer for consideration:

1)Swordsmanship & Jujutsu. Sokaku appears to have specialized in swordsmanship prior to 1875. In 1876, Sokaku spent a few weeks with Saigo Tanomo before leaving for Kyushu. 1877/1878 is when Sokaku is reported to have fought a karate-ka using empty handed sword techniques. Though it is likely that Sokaku had already been exposed to some level of jujutsu (the Aizu area had a great deal of martial arts active at that time), he would have still been primarily a swordsman, so his use of sword technique empty handed tends to make sense - to me at least. Sokaku was only just staring his period of musha-shugyo at that time. Jujutsu is largely based on sword techniques anyway, and even Ueshiba based much of his tactics and taisabaki off of swordsmanship.

2) Oshikiuchi. It is said in Daito-ryu that at least one of the three major influences for Sokaku's revival of "Daito-ryu" is "Aizu Oshikiuchi", the other two being the Takeda family art and Sokaku's own experiences. Oshikiuchi may in fact be an incorrect homophone for an unknown combination of kanji (guessed at by someone transcribing for Sokaku), since Sokaku is the sole (known) source for this term, and he was illiterate and spoke with a difficult accent (high pitched voice and no front teeth). He may not have known the meaning of the kanji used for "oshikiuchi", and may also have incorrectly understood/remembered the term as (possibly) repeated to him by Saigo Tanomo. Any paperwork that Sokaku may have had regarding the art prior to his own lifetime is said to have been lost/destroyed. There are some family records still kept in the Ise shrine in Fukushima, but it is unknown (to me at least) what the content of these documents is.

Anyway, Aizu Oshikuchi is a major part of what post-Sokaku Daito-ryu claims to be derived from, and references to this art being a combative set of techniques for use within Edo castle during the Tokugawa period can be found in all the major orthodox branches of Daito-ryu. Kondo Katsuyuki actually re-posted a geneology chart for Aizu Oshikiuchi in his 2001 "Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu" DVD (BAB). In it, the well known Lord Hoshina Masayuki is credited as being the founding developer of Oshikiuchi (also known possibly as "Otome waza no Aizu-han" [Aizu otomewaza; Otome-ryu; Aizu Odome] and/or "Aiki no In/Yo-ho").

Lord Takeda Kunitsugu, grandson of the famous Takeda Shingen, went to Aizu in 1574 to deliver Shingen's last will and testament to his ally Ashina Moriuji, ruler of Aizu. Kunitsugu was given land and a position by Ashina, and ended up staying in Aizu and continuing the last main line of the Kai-Genji Takeda family there. Kunitsugu was an advisor to Hoshina Masayuki, who worked in Edo castle, and may have taught the Takeda family art to him (Hoshina had also been a vassal to Takeda Shingen, and it is said that the Takeda art was opened up and taught to officials within the Aizu-han in any event).

After Hoshina Masayuki, 10 other inheritors of the art are listed, ending with Hoshina Chikanori (Tanomo Saigo) and Takeda Sokaku in the last position. Throughout most of the art's history, various Matsudaira daimyo are listed as the inheritors. So to me it seems quite possible that something related to the Takeda family was taught within Edo castle, and that such methods would have included techniques from seiza.

I've also heard/read from a number of sources that edged weapons were not allowed to be drawn within Edo castle - by anyone, and that this is the reason why empty handed defenses were created against emtpy handed AND armed attacks. This is something that is also tramsmitted in the history of Masaki-ryu manrikigusari, hence the creation of a weighted chain for defense against edged weapon attacks. Is this Edo castle rule false? I understand of course that defense against weapon attacks is no picnic for anyone, but a hatamoto or body guard in teh castle highly trained in martial arts would certainly have had some kind of edge over a lesser trained attacker. Many of the defenses involve nullifying the attack before the attacker's weapon is employed as well, which also seems practical if pulled off correctly.

Other ryu-ha may have techniques from idori and/or hanza handachi, but in the case of Daito-ryu, there is a context specific claim to why, where and when they were used (indoors, inside a castle). This seems like something that can be verified or dismissed through academic research. Interestingly, if the Takeda family methods originally contained idori and hanza-handachi techniques prior to Hoshina Masayuki's modifications, then they more than likely would have been quite like the methods that Ellis described from Takenouchi and Araki-ryu. The Takeda family art DID have "jujutsu" methods though, as this can be seen clearly in the Heiho Okugi-sho, which Ellis agrees looks kind of like the typical jujutsu of a number of ryu-ha.

3) Unconventional transmission. Sokaku did not teach the art in the standard koryu way, I think that can be agreed upon. He had met Kano Jigoro (Judo), and may have been influenced with the direction he was taking with traditional jujutsu (?). But for the most part, Sokaku did not stay in a dojo or any one place for very long, but rather, claimed to have taught some 30,000 students through 7-10 day seminars throughout the country. It is therefore understandable that Sokaku would not have carried with him (on foot) an array of training weapons, or, required that interested students attending a seminar bring a number of training weapons with them when the main focus of the art at that time was towards teaching military and police practical modern day methods.

Students like Sagawa, Horikawa and Ueshiba were some of the few close personal students of Sokaku, and as such, appear to have been taught "everything" - including the historical methods - in hopes that they would transmit the art to future generations. They now represent three well known transmissions of the art, and Ueshiba's close relationship to Sokaku would explain why such methods are included in modern day aikido. It is also understandable that these teachers may not include training weapons for every "weapon" technique because this was not how they were taught the methods by Sokaku originally, for the reasons submitted above.

Since Sokaku taught the art unconventionally by koryu standards, and seemed to constantly teach "new" techniques, constantly developing his methods throughout his lifetime, it makes since that Daito-ryu is often referred to as a "principle based art" - perhaps the first in this regard (though of course all Japanese arts are technically based on principles; ie: kata). Sokaku would have had to adapt the art somewhat in order to teach modern police and military practical applications (based on principles). So for principle based techniques that are geared towards modern applicability, he apparently did not consider training weapons critical to have been a critical inclusion.

In closing, I'd say that we'll probably never know for sure what is the "correct" history. However, one direction that might lead to credibilty (or not) would be to further research the history of any Aizu methods that were taught/used within Edo castle in third party documentation (any takers?). I'd say that what we DO know of history definitely provides us with the reasonable possibility that the history Daito-ryu claims is (largely) accurate.

Sorry for such a long post, but there was a lot to reply to!

Regards,

_________________
Nathan Scott
Tsuki Kage Dojo
E-budo.com/Aikijujutsu Forum

Aikido Journal Forum Index/ Daito-ryu - Technical/ Ellis Amdur's article:
http://www.aikidojournal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5445

[Nathan Scott]

Re-posted from the Aikido Journal Discussion Forums (posted: 4/3/2004):

It's an interesting subject, but make no mistake, it is not my intention to convince the public that Daito-ryu's historical claims are accurate. Rather, my own limited research has shown that the trasmitted history of Daito-ryu is at least *possible*. The lack of supporting evidence, however (primary or third party), is a significant problem. I am inclined to agree that it is hard to believe that one person could invent or even compile such a sophisticated art and operating system without *substantial* training from SOMEONE in jujutsu. The operating principles of the art are also the type of sophisticated level of training one might expect to see from an otome-ryu art taught to senior level clansmen. But who knows? It is what it is.

The fact that "Daito-ryu" or Yamato-ryu have not been found to date in third party records is significant, but on the other hand, the Takeda family art was said to be something that was not taught openly. There is, as I mentioned, evidence of such an art in the Koyo Gunkan (Heiho Okugisho), and a number of (claimed) extinct derivitive arts claiming lineage to Takeda Shingen. Some art *did* exist at one time, and it would appear as though Takeda Sokaku was a member of the same blood line of Takeda Shingen. It does not seem likely that he could have learned much of it from a family member, but it does seem as though he could have learned an art (oshikiuchi) that appears to have been adapted from the Takeda family art for use inside Edo castle. The reason some lines don't wish to list Saigo as the previous "headmaster" is because he was not a Takeda, and the claimed lineage of the art prior to Sokaku lies strictly within the Takeda bloodline (the Takeda name was previously "Minamoto").

One thing I think is interesting is that so many people want to get into heated debates about what the "real" history of Daito-ryu is. Almost every ryu-ha has some "questionable" claim to origins, whether it be a divine inspiration by the founder, a tengu on a mountain top, or a famous historical figure. Such lore is common, and is still transmitted within the arts, even though not a great deal of serious attention is paid to such claims. So why is Daito-ryu's claims so controversial?

Every jujutsu or sumo art can claim origins to the period recorded in the Kojiki, and in many cases, Emperor Seiwa if they really wanted to. But at what point does a traditional trasmission stop, and a new one start? Aikido is a modern art, but it does not really claim lineage past Ueshiba Morihei. It could quite easily claim the same lineage as Daito-ryu though. Ueshiba changed the methods he learned over his lifetime. Sokaku is known openly by all as the "Chuko no So" (itinerant revivor) of Daito-ryu. Did he change it enough to warrant disregarding the previous teachings he may have received? Nobody knows. Various headmasters of other ryu-ha have also had the title Chuko no So attached to them. But Sokaku transmitted a history and lineage prior to himself, so that is what continues to be transmitted within the art. Again, it is what it is. Undocumented lore within the art.

The only thing remotely unique about Daito-ryu's claim is that there is a thin (and in several cases broken) succession blood line that can be traced. The Takeda family used to be the Minamoto, and Emperor Seiwa, the 56th Emperor, was part of the Genji (Minamoto) line. Emperor Seiwa and the Kojiki seem to be included as "influences" in the Daito-ryu lineage, more or less, but Minamoto Yoshimitsu (and to some degree his brother) is the figure credited with developing the principles of the art now know as Daito-ryu, which is why the current name of the art supposedly comes from the name of their mansion and stories alluding to some of these principles discovered by Yoshimitsu and Yoshiie are included in the DR historical lore.

But in any event, like every other ryu-ha or koryu out there, I say let the merit of the art be judged on what has survived, regardless of it's claimed pedigree. As mentioned in my last post, Daito-ryu was not transmitted (for the most part) in a traditional dojo atmosphere in Sokaku's generation, though a number of the more senior students of his did receive quite a bit of private one-on-one instruction from him. There is no doubt that Daito-ryu is not a "typical" ryu-ha in many ways. But on the other hand, there are a number of ryu-ha that have unorthodox elements to them, and some of them are transmitted in a far more open and commercial format than (most) orthodox Daito-ryu.

The article you linked, "Shiro Saigo - Judo's Secret Weapon?" contains a number of assumptions, but is a valuable article that reaches a reasonable conclusion. There are two things the author forgot to include in the article though, which are the only pieces of evidence (weak as they may be) that might support the possibility that Saigo Shiro learned some amount of the principles that are now transmitted within orthodox Daito-ryu. One is the second-hand quote from a discussion with Sokaku's friend Itabashi Rinzaburo, in which he is claimed to have said:

"What I do now I learned from Hoshina-san [Saigo Tanomo]. There was another student [Saigo Shiro?], but he’s gone now."

Also, another reference that I can't find off hand refers to training with Shiro as having a different an undescribable feeling, that you feel as though you would lose your power as soon as you grabbed him. Even the description of yama arashi in the judo book contains a hint towards a principle that I think students of Daito-ryu would find familiar. None of this is very motivating evidence, mind you, but is probably worth noting in an article that is trying to authoratatively wrap up the whole "mystery".

Regards,
_________________
Nathan Scott
Tsuki Kage Dojo
E-budo.com/Aikijujutsu Forum

Aikido Journal Forum Index/ Daito-ryu - Technical/ Ellis Amdur's article:
http://www.aikidojournal.com/forums...opic.php?t=5445

[Nathan Scott]

Re-posted from the Aikido Journal Discussion Forums (posted: 4/3/2004):

BTW, the famous Ogasawara-ryu (school of etiquette, previously known for their skills in kyubajutsu) also claims to have descended from Emperor Seiwa, and shares several headmasters with Daito-ryu in the Minamoto and Takeda family (and Takeda-ryu) throughout their history, as well as being an Otome-ryu to the Tokugawa Shogun in the Edo period:

Ogasawara-ryu Yabusame, history:
http://members.aol.com/uchuujin/history.html

Interestingly, the mon for Ogasawara-ryu is three stacked diamonds, while the mon for the Takeda family are four diamonds arranged in a diamond shape.
_________________
Nathan Scott
Tsuki Kage Dojo
E-budo.com/Aikijujutsu Forum

Aikido Journal Forum Index/ Daito-ryu - Technical/ Ellis Amdur's article:
http://www.aikidojournal.com/forums...opic.php?t=5445


Also, it is worth mentioning Takeda-ryu Kyubajutsu also shares lineage with Ogasawara-ryu and the claims of Daito-ryu. The Takeda-ryu also use the same Takeda-bishi mon as Takeda Sokaku:

Takeda-ryu Kyubajutsu
http://www.yabusame.jp/english/program1.html

That makes at least three arts with similar historical claims.

[Nathan Scott]

Re-posted from the Aikido Journal Discussion Forums (posted: 4/15/2004):

Here are a couple of more passing thoughts to consider regarding the claimed lineage/age of Daito-ryu:
1) If Sokaku were going to completely fabricate a lineage all the way back to Emperor Seiwa, why leave intentional generational gaps in the lineage? The lineage as passed down by Sokakau himself includes three significant breaks; 1 of six generations, and two of four generations. Having major generational breaks does not provide as credible of a lineage for his art, and it would have been very easy to (have someone) research the names of the famous Takeda family line to include in the lineage if he had desired to fabricate a credible sounding "lineage" of his art. To me, this incomplete lineage implies one of two things:

- Either Sokaku had reason to believe that these figures recorded in his lineage were legitimate caretakers of the system, or, he copied this list from an older list he had been issued previously.

- Sokaku included these names in the "lineage" because he believed that all of them had contributed something significant to the development of what he was now teaching (based on history and/or lore), and as such, breaks in the lineage he was presenting were done so because listing a succession of names was deemed unimportant for the purpose of documenting these transmitted "influences".

BTW, at least two lines claiming to teach Daito-ryu or claiming lineage to Daito-ryu HAVE decided to "fill in the breaks" in this incomplete lineage, but these represent the exception in Daito-ryu branches, not the rule!

2) Also, interestingly, the Bugei Ryu-ha Dai-jiten has the following entry in it under Takeda-ryu:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Takeda ryu - Consisted of aiki, jujujutsu, suijutsu and tessen. Their lineage claims Takeda Nobutoki and Takeda Nobumune. The last headmaster listed was Takeda Noriyuki, who was a student of Takeda Nobumune.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Takeda Nobutori, Nobumune & Noriyuki do not appear in Sokaku's lineage chart, but for some reason, aiki is listed as one of the arts that this extinct line of "Takeda-ryu" taught. The family line of Takeda is the same as that of which Takeda apparently comes from, but the last headmaster listed for this Takeda-ryu in the BRDJ died several hundred years ago. So this line of Takeda-ryu could be assumed to be a branch of the mainline Takeda family teachings far prior to Takeda Sokaku claiming that his own family art was based on aiki.

The BRDJ is not the last word on all things koryu, but the inclusion of aiki in the curriculum of a long extinct art of the Takeda family in this resource is quite interesting.

As far as the lineage that Sokaku claimed, there definitely do seem to be some names that were included because they were simply influential prior to the actual founding of the "Daito-ryu" system.

As mentioned, Emperor Seiwa was the 56th ruler of Japan during the Heian period, and is the first name listed on the chart. However, it is Emperor Seiwa's sixth son, Prince Sadazumi, that is credited with discovering the secrets of aiki. Skipping ahead a few names - there is a 5th generation descendent of Prince Sadazumi, Minamoto Yoshimitsu (and his brother Yoshiie) that are credited as having provided research crucial to the founding of Daito-ryu, and as such, are considered the founder(s) of the art. So, to the best of my knowledge, Emperor Seiwa is not literally credited as being the founder of the art, even though his name appears first in the lineage.

Looking at the choice in names, I'd guess that the lineage was thought of more as a catalog of art influences as well as that documenting the blood descent of Takeda Sokaku himself, which according to history, reached back through the Minamoto family and to the Imperial family. So, although Sokaku's chart is usually presented as a "lineage" (keizu) chart, it might be more accurate to view it as a "geneaology" (keifu) chart (or maybe more accurately, a "geneaological outline").

On the other hand, the fact that Takeda Shingen's name is not included on Sokaku's lineage is interesting, since he is of the same family line and is credited as having used the Ippon Dori technique found in modern Daito-ryu as his own secret technique. Hmmmm...

_________________
Nathan Scott
Tsuki Kage Dojo
E-budo.com/Aikijujutsu Forum

Aikido Journal Forum Index/ Daito-ryu - Technical/ Ellis Amdur's article:
http://www.aikidojournal.com/forums...opic.php?t=5445

[Jeff Cook]

Nathan,

I have a quick question regarding a sentence in one of your posts above, reprinted from another source. Here is the quote: "Jujutsu is largely based on sword techniques anyway, and even Ueshiba based much of his tactics and taisabaki off of swordsmanship."

I distinctly recall reading one of Ueshiba's son's works that his father's Aiki Budo movements/taisubaki were based largely upon spear work, not sword work.

Am I out in left field on this?

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[Nathan Scott]

Hi Jeff,

Basically, I can't say for a fact what Ueshiba Sensei based his movements off of. I can say that his teacher, Takeda Sokaku, was a famous swordsman before he began teaching empty-hand techniques.

Being a student of the sword (and aikido), I've noticed a great number of movements and tactics in both DR and aikido that I believe are influenced if not derived directly from swordsmanship. I'm not sure whether Ueshiba's son was referring to the short boar spear or more orthodox spearmanship, but this would be an important consideration, since the two are used very differently.

I don't know much about spearmanship, but from what I have seen, the taisabaki tends to be very linear movement forward and back from a hanmi posture - often without crossing the feet. There are surely some things in aikido and jujutsu in general that can be found in spearmanship, but from my experience and research, there appears to me a much stronger influence from swordsmanship.

If Ueshiba Sensei was telling people that he based his movements on the spear (of which he didn't formally study, though Takeda Sokaku knew something of spearmanship as well), then I don't know. I'd like to hear someone who knows more about sojutsu comment on aikido taisabaki.

BTW, it is probably worth mentioning that Japanese tend to make authoratative statements based on the context of a discussion and mindset at the time. In other words, if he were speaking about religion, he might just as easily have stated that "aikido taisabaki is based on the natural movements of the universe". As such, it is possible that this statement he made was not intended to be a stand alone B&W quote.

Regards,

[Jeff Cook]

Nathan, thanks; I'm away from home on Army business. When I get home in August I will check my library for the source of that, and get back with you.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[Samurai Jack]

There is allot of talk about Sokaku Takeda's role in either creating Daitoryu, being its reviver. A bit of a controversy it has become with the awareness of Daitoryu outside Japan. I personally think those who perpetuate controversy are dangerous and skewing facts, not allowing people to make up there own minds from the facts, and being fraudulent.

Unfortunately, the issue about Takeda is more of a concern to in Aikido then anyone else. And recently, a revival of the latest attack on Takeda is apparent on a popular Aikido board. If you know the history between the two arts of Aikido and Daitoryu, it seems this latest controversy is part of the go on issue of an off-spring (Aikido) wanting its independence from its parent (Daitoryu) through discrediting the parent. There has been allot said about Takeda, much of it isn't flattering, much of it isn't accurate, or kind. This is due to the published writings of Stevens and other Aikidoka who vocalize harsh criticisms in regard to Daitoryu, which seem to either influence readers toward a campaign to provide greater credit and appeal to Aikido, or reflect the already established dislike for Daitoryu by Aikidokas.

The new attacks as arguments against Sokaku is not like the past which was directed at Takeda personally, i.e. he was crazy, brutal, criminal etc. to discredit Daitoryu. Now the trend is to rather attack the legitimacy of Sokaku. Mostly, again coming from Aikidoka.

These type of attacks on Sokaku are easy, for one he is long dead. Second, the time and period he was born. Third, the Japanese culture up until the time of it's cultural change to modernization. Fourth, Takada wasn't a scholar, and possibly was able to read and write to some extent, but not enough to be considered literate, and he was not schooled. Fifth, there has been a past history to discredit Daitoryu and Takeda, that has influenced many against Takeda. For all these reasons and possibly more the demand for what we expect today as proof doesn't exist, other then the word of a man many Japanese noted as the "Last Samurai" , a man who clung to the old traditions, and not likened to modernization. A man who clung seriously to an era and ways that he was born a bit too late, until his death. A man who was out-dated and dislike by his peers and the following generation for his stubbornness to the old ways and not embracing the current ways. A man evidently misunderstood, and thus an easy target to attack. Therefore, it makes it easy for people today to find ways to discredit him.

Takeda legit or not? I don't know and I don't think it matters to have the answer as much as it is understanding the argument. First of all, Takeda was evidently, a man who walked the walked and wasn't laughed at for his skills. Yet, this is often over-looked when those who say he is the creator of the art, hence a fraud, yet offer no proof. What is offered is speculation as a result of measuring Takeda by today's rules and standards,and what we value in terms to what we consider and important to what is to be of legitimacy ( mostly western), i.e. is Daitoryu Koryu or not?

Most arguments against Takeda are styled to those who know little about Japanese culture then and now. Thus, tend to lend toward the view Takeda wasn't legit. Those who style arguments against Takeda usually are very well schooled, mostly Aikidoka, in Japanese history and culture. They know well what they write is twisted enough so that their audience ( who has limited knowledge in such matters ) will make logical leaps, and thus easily be convinced of their point of view. The arguments are often very attractive and ride the coat-tails of what is trendy in the martial arts world of controversy. Also such writers are well known and respected in Aikido circles.

Those who work in these propaganda mills damage more the whole system of legitimacy, breaking it down. They allow for those famous frauds we all know and laugh at to gain more credit. It gives the snake oil salesmen a much broader avenue to sell their snake oil when some like Takeda is taken to task by brow-beating controversy creating Aikidoka who want to fill their dojos, or something.

I think what matters more with this controversy isn't Takeda reviving or creating Daitoryu, but rather the continual stink Aikido is still carrying on to discredit Daitoryu. What matters is situations like this hurts all matters of legitimacy, and makes it more comfortable for frauds peddle their lies. Pretty soon we will all be in that grey area of legitimacy.

[cxt]

Samurai Jack

Has some "aikidoka" here on this board or thread done so????

I'm all about fairness and accuracy---but if your not responding to a direct post HERE--on this site, then whats your point?

You also don't give any specific's as to whom is defaming Takeda, where they are doing so etc.

I would think that "there" and to "those" people would be more productive than doing it here--where as far as I know its not going on.

Don't get me wrong, everyone has the right to get things off their chest.

Just wondering if all that passion and information you have could be put to better use confronting folks directly.

Like I said, I honestly mean no offense, just my own, un-asked for opinion--- thinking out-loud so to speak.


Chris Thomas

[Samurai Jack]

You also don't give any specific's as to whom is defaming Takeda, where they are doing so etc.
Please click here (http://www.aikidojournal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5397&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0) :)

[Ron Tisdale]

You are aware that this thread was started

07 Apr 2000

Right? Old news...

Best,
Ron

[cxt]

Samurai Jack

But that's not "here."

You might wish to focus on the rest of my post.



Chris Thomas

[Shingen]

Hello everybody,

I would like to share a point, made in an article that I v read and that actually made a lot of sense to me.
The martial arts have a long cultural heritage, lost in the dawn of time. These arts developed, got tested, got improved, got mixed when more they were needed, during the feudal time. So, can we actually talk about 'founder' or 'legit transmission' or people who summed their knowledge and experience into a personal perspective to trasmit it, therefore a sort of 'preservers'. In this case, the 'aiki' is tracked back to the aiki in-you hou, and maybe before then in the nei-cha of the Chinese martial experience. If we assume that Takeda didn't invent anything new but organized some teachings, these went down to Ueshiba who rounded up some corners according to his experience and believes, under him several other students enphasized different concepts making different approaches to their styles and maybe the aikido in 100 years will be different again from the one of today, maybe under other names or claiming other lineages other then Ueshiba.
Therefore, should't be wondering why so much arguments about lineage and 'legit issues' when martial arts are naturally flowing through the times and generations whethere there are names on a scroll or not.

Just my opinion thought, sorry if I actually slipped OT.

Best,
Shingen

[Jock Armstrong]

Make sure you post your real name . The mods may delete your account if you don't. Actually lineage does matter to Japanese and people who train in ryuha, especially koryu. If you just want to learn to fight, lineage may be of limited interest to you; however, many people train for other reasons, a connection to the past being one of them.

[Dave Humm]

There is sooooo much generalism in your post; I almost thought you were trolling er... I meant kidding.

Let’s look at one or two of your statements.

...the issue about Takeda is more of a concern to in Aikido then anyone elseReally ? Well I'm "in" Aikido and I couldn't give a hoot personally, none of my students either. Come to that, I haven't heard anyone in the organisation I belong too moan, bitch or whinge about Takeda Sokaku or Daito Ryu. ...it seems this latest controversy is part of the go on issue of an off-spring (Aikido) wanting its independence from its parent (Daitoryu) through discrediting the parentPerhaps you might point me in the direction of where and when the current Doshu has made this statement or action. Perhaps you mean someone else or some other organisation with your sweeping "Aikido wanting" statement ?...to either influence readers toward a campaign to provide greater credit and appeal to Aikido, or reflect the already established dislike for Daitoryu by AikidokasI'm sorry were you referring to me as one of those "aikidokas"? Perhaps you’d like to be a tad more specific.

The rest I can't be bothered with.

Your comments would be best served over at aikijournal.

Regards

[Samurai Jack]

To address the comment of the link I enclosed as being an out of date thread. I will entertain this idea. I feel the statement of the linked thread being out of date might be implying, and thereby, discrediting my observation that Aikido is the unrelenting impugner of Daito ryu's legitimacy. The thread was started in 2000, and the last current post Sat Feb 04, 2006. The time line of activity indicates a support for my use of that particular Aikido thread as an example of a continuous impugn effort against Daito ryu.
Concerning the view I have too much general-ism. The reason for the standard general-ism is not make accusations specifically toward individuals, but rather to illuminate the tagging (graffiti). In that way we are not distracted by the insipid sport of name calling, finger pointing, and carrying our hearts on our sleeves. I mentioned John Stevens for a reason, as he is a published author who makes controversial and sweeping generalization that where are are read by the masses. He is a voice, as other publishers and writers that influence and echo the rank and file of Aikidoka thought and attitude, as well as and others. It is the the Aikido corps attitude, the cumulative body of Aikido the continues the unrelenting competitive effort against Daito ryu and Takeda's legitimacy. It is a general feeling that Aikido in general doesn't honor its parent, on the whole. But this isn't what the argument is about.

I feel Aikido's overall disdain for Daito ryu is an example of the malleable nature of legitimacy, resulting in the ease of constructed legitimacy by the ill-legitimate. If Aikido can be perniciously pound down, put into question, the legitimacy of its parent art then who is to say any art is legitimate? By what standard then is legitimate arts awarded?
If we look at Daito ryu and say Takeda had no historical connection and he made the art up himself, then who is to say this can't be done by anyone, even those in Aikido?

If Takeda did create the art solely by himself, then he is a genius! To create 2800 techniques, how ever you slice it, is god-like ( Shinto god like ). How reasonable is that for one man to be that inventive, that cumulative in knowledge especially when Daito ryu is so involved complex and intricate, much-less how long they say it takes to learn and grasp it.

It would reason, also, Aikido would in turn then have issues with legitimacy as well. Would it not?

I think a concert effort to see the general effect of accusations and attitude of Aikido toward Daito ryu destroys a larger mechnism. But the Green Eyed Monster never sees clearly.

[cxt]

Samurai Jack


I honestly applaud your efforts to express your feelings, establish your point of view, and get information out that you seem to feel folks around here need.

But the bottomline is that NO-ONE here expressed the views/view your so upset about.

This is kinda like me logging on to vent my rage at spinich, horrible plant, sure its "good" for you--everything nasty is "good" for you.
And people actually LIKE it!!! Can you belive that?
Moms feeding their kids this nasty plant, people putting it in to soups, stews etc.
What nerve!
Anyone ever ASK if we liked that way? Heck no they just do it.

It would be different if this was site/thread about how great spinich was, or about anyone whom dislikes spinich was somehow "defective."
Or over how spinich was getting an undeserved "bad rap" etc.

But its not--so this really is not the place to be logging on to vent my rage at spinich.

See what I'm getting at here???????

Like I said, I respect your opinion, its just your ire and angst here is simply misplaced.


Chris Thomas

[Samurai Jack]

But the bottomline is that NO-ONE here expressed the views/view your so upset about.

Hmmm... unfortunately, I wasn't aware of such sensibilities in an Aikijutsu and related koryu forum. My indications where merely engaging a mild, yet spicy round-table matter of those with discerning minds.

To stay the track, I personally view the collective Aikido to incorporate a pious theme, which hinders the facts. This may have come from Uyeshiba denoting himself with divinity; of course not in the Christian sense, rather the Shinto inception of Kami. Uyeshiba as a possible strategic move toward heightened credibility over Takeda, and to enjoy a greater popularity and fame established for himself devises a definite authoritative tent by means of the long held tradition in Japanese martial arts. By taking the Kami angle as other previous well known martial artists did, Uyeshiba with lesser skill and lesser popularity then Takeda establishes credibility in another ways.
Uyeshiba, not as well known conflicted with Takeda over Uyeshiba teaching Daito ryu when not authorized too. Uyeshiba's action caught the ire of Takeda, and rightfully so, even by our standards. Teaching without permission, disrespecting ones teacher indicates strongly Uyeshiba formulated early plans to establish himself over Takeda to be the authority of Daito ryu then or at some point in the future. This may have been the root of other well know conflicts between the two. This may be a testament to the legitimacy of Takeda, and Daito ryu.

If Takeda was the creator of Daito ryu and made it all up himself then it would reason at some point during his tenure of teaching 30,000 plus people all over Japan that someone then would have call him into question, and not in the year 2000. I would think those government agents, police, military, and other influential Japanese at that time would have said something then. It is evident they had greater means and knowledge to expose a lie, if there was one. If Daito ryu and Takeda didn't have historical connections, I doubt the cogent evidence of Daito ryu and Takeda's reputation in Japan, among so many including Uyeshiba to study, and respect Takeda and learn the art would exist. Daito ryu and Takeda left greater influence and impressions on many well known martial artists. It seems Uyeshiba was the only one of a different composition.


In thought.

[Dave Humm]

Hmmm... unfortunately, I wasn't aware of such sensibilities in an Aikijutsu and related koryu forum. My indications where merely engaging a mild, yet spicy round-table matter of those with discerning minds. Again, no disrespect intended but no one in this forum originally expressed opinion about the subject matter you wish to discuss, indeed your opening post didn't really ask for people's opinions, it merely expressed yours based on what other people said *some time ago and importantly, *on another forum.

and...If Takeda was the creator of Daito ryu and made it all up himself... Who really cares ? I know I don't, unless of course someone has proof or suspects that Takeda Sokaku was in fact some 'oldie worldie' 10th dan Soke with membership of several hall of fames and got his judan from some Bad/Baffling Budo organisation.

I'll say it again, your comments would be better served on the forum containing the material you're so passionate about.

Regards

[thomas54]

Mr. Robinson

Recently in Japan, the Origin of Daito-ryu is a hot debate, but it is rather Daito ryu people themself who are doubting the 2000years history of DR and suggesting that Daito-ryu was invented by Takeda Sokaku.

In fact the first person who claimed the possibility of Takeda as the creator of Daito-ryu was Sagawa Yukiyoshi, a student of Takeda Sokaku.

The martial art curriculam of Aizu Clan are investigated, the diary of Saigo Tanomo (Hoshina Chikamasa) are investigated, no sign of Daito-ryu or even a ryu which is related to Daito-ryu.

There are even doubts about the status of the Takeda family as a samurai as there are no records about a samurai family with the family name Takeda in Aizu clan.

All these research was done by Daito-ryu people.

[Shingen]

Dear Thomas,

Assuming that Takeda has invented the Daito-Ryu, I would be curious to know on which basis. There is definitely a predominant influence from sword movements, but...what about the ju jutsu side ?.
There are some people who claims a different lineage called the Takeda Ryu, do you know something more about this ?

Thanks

Michael Earnest

[Nathan Scott]

Mr. Yawata,

When you say "people in Japan are researching Daito-ryu", I'm guessing you are referring primarily to the people who contribute to Hiden Magazine, since your comments about Daito-ryu in Japan posted to the net seem to mirror the current articles published in the magazine at any given time. Hiden Magazine has had some good articles over the years, but is owned by BAB, and as such has turned into primarily an expensive advertisment - cleverly disguised as a magazine - in order to promote the books and videos they sell, not a scholarly budo research magazine full of scholarly articles.

Hiden, without fail, has exploitive articles about "aiki" and/or "Daito-ryu" in EVERY issue it publishes. However, the vast majority of contributors on these subjects are either not students of Daito-ryu or are students of students of instructors (not highly initiated in an orthodox branch of Daito-ryu).

You say that Sagawa Sensei proposed that Sokaku made up the art himself, but he continued to include a lineage in the densho he issued, which listed Saigo as Sokaku's teacher. Sagawa Sensei may have suggested it as a possibility, but that in itself doesn't necessarily mean anything.

The martial art curriculam of Aizu Clan are investigated

By who? Where did they check? BTW, I'm not sure why people keep talking about "Daito-ryu" in history - the name Daito-ryu isn't going to come up in any historical documents prior to Takeda Sokaku because it didn't exist. Sokaku admitted that he changed/created the name Daito-ryu as part of the "revival" of the art, in which he combined three lines of teachings. So the question is, what was the art called before Sokaku changed the name? Oshikiuchi, Takeda-ryu, Yamato-ryu, or something else? As far as I know, no one has uncovered an absolutely complete or comprehensive list of the vast number of arts that were taught in the Aizu area.

Anyway, this subject has been discussed at length here and on other forums. I don't mind covering it more, or including elements of other forums if something can be gained from it. When I get a moment, I'll post a link to the previous discussion here.

Regards,

[Nathan Scott]

Hi all,

I've merged this thread with a previous one of the same subject. Please take a look at page 2 of this thread, as I copied a number of strong arguments from some postings on Aikido Journal.

Also, it might be worth taking a look at these threads:

Origin of Daito-ryu / AJJ (http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17048)

Aizu-han extant bujutsu (http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16484)

Regards,

[Samurai Jack]

CXT,
I have strong leanings toward the idea that Takeda didn't solely create the art. This is based on his character, his life and life style, personality, and during the time he lived. It has come into vogue to have present generations, who are far removed from the life and times of an individual, to reprove someone like Takeda and place them in the pulp pillory. I can't accredit such a trend, nor advocate such efforts as a means for the truth, but rather a vassal for entertainment, or political positioning. Therefore, taking on a Sherlock Holmes approach then it is easy to navigate toward the most likely and simplest explanation to find the most likely.

What weight does this carry? It is a directive for evaluation of legitimacy. If you ( sweeping generalization )ignorantly reprove someone such as Takeda, be it from Aikidokas, or whom have you, you impugn upon the whole structure of legitimacy. You throw the baby out with the bath water. The less intelligent and knowledgeable dominate, via rumor, gossip and innuendo dictating legitimacy standards and measures on whims. When over-riding the established means of legitimacy chaos issues, grey areas are no longer grey they are settled as fact. This is the problem.

Sticking to tradition isn't a bad idea, regardless of the rebellious indict of those who see value in relinquishing tradition. I for one, feel, from time to time it is required to post a reminder of the importance of what has already been established for legitimacy and that it has worked for centuries. I also feel it is important not move toward pulp trends that entertain and amuse upon such vital figures as Takeda. For this reason I feel it is worth the effort to take note, why people should care- those who don't feel threatened by legitimacy or don't have in interest for an art like DR have its legitimacy questioned.

[Samurai Jack]

I was hammering through some of my old Aikido Journals and found the following which maybe of interest:
Stanley Pranin wrote in a two part article on Takeda titled, "Takeda Sokaku & Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu." From Aikido Journal 1995, vol 22, no. 2, pg. 43, for those who want to reference it. Pranin supports the idea that Takeda had historical connection to the Aizu and DR. Pranin I would like to place Sokaku Takeda in historical fact from the many myths these various tales are due to the second-hand and biased nature of information popularly disseminated about Sokaku over course of many years.
Pranin's broach points to Takeda awarding deshos that are of lenghty advance levels and sophisticated in nature. Something Takeda as an illiterate could not have managed himself, nor something that is without tradition. Pranin [Takeda due to his illiteracy] could or would have instigated the compilation of these Daito ryu scrolls or something similar must have existed previously in Aizu, presumably within the Takeda family.
The densho holds more importance than just a collection of techniques, as illustrated by Pranin. When a densho validity is in question, so it the legitimacy of the holder. For example, Uyeshiba's densho in Yagyyu Shingan-ryu lacks the authenticating seal over the Yagyyu Shingan-ryu branch teacher's name. (Meik Skoss, Aikido Journal 1994, vol. 21, no. 4 pg. 18). We can see that Uyeshiba densho is lacking and cause for concern about his studies in this art. I present this to merely show the importance of the densho and its function to provide legitimacy. Pranin didn't indicate any such errors in Takeda's densho, then it is to reason Takeda had historical connections and didn't solely create Daito ryu.

[thomas54]

Mr. Yawata,

When you say "people in Japan are researching Daito-ryu", I'm guessing you are referring primarily to the people who contribute to Hiden Magazine, since your comments about Daito-ryu in Japan posted to the net seem to mirror the current articles published in the magazine at any given time. Hiden Magazine has had some good articles over the years, but is owned by BAB, and as such has turned into primarily an expensive advertisment - cleverly disguised as a magazine - in order to promote the books and videos they sell, not a scholarly budo research magazine full of scholarly articles.

Hiden, without fail, has exploitive articles about "aiki" and/or "Daito-ryu" in EVERY issue it publishes. However, the vast majority of contributors on these subjects are either not students of Daito-ryu or are students of students of instructors (not highly initiated in an orthodox branch of Daito-ryu).

You say that Sagawa Sensei proposed that Sokaku made up the art himself, but he continued to include a lineage in the densho he issued, which listed Saigo as Sokaku's teacher. Sagawa Sensei may have suggested it as a possibility, but that in itself doesn't necessarily mean anything.



By who? Where did they check? BTW, I'm not sure why people keep talking about "Daito-ryu" in history - the name Daito-ryu isn't going to come up in any historical documents prior to Takeda Sokaku because it didn't exist. Sokaku admitted that he changed/created the name Daito-ryu as part of the "revival" of the art, in which he combined three lines of teachings. So the question is, what was the art called before Sokaku changed the name? Oshikiuchi, Takeda-ryu, Yamato-ryu, or something else? As far as I know, no one has uncovered an absolutely complete or comprehensive list of the vast number of arts that were taught in the Aizu area.

Anyway, this subject has been discussed at length here and on other forums. I don't mind covering it more, or including elements of other forums if something can be gained from it. When I get a moment, I'll post a link to the previous discussion here.

Regards,

Mr. Scott

With respect I must say that to suddenly criticise my post taking it out from the original context is not fair. Bear in mind that it was a post with the intent to counter argue a person in a thread in which he claimed that recently Aikidoka are trying to attack Takeda Sokaku and Daito-ryu.

That said you are wrong about the sorce upon which I based my opinion. I don't read "Hiden" magazines regulary and I think have you stated the reason very well.

For me, the ongoing serial column and essays about the history of Daito-ryu at the "Aiki News (Japanese version which title is now "Do") from Takahashi Ken reveals the most valuable information and discussion.As I assume that you know him, he is NOT an amateur, he is a very renowned martial arts historian about Japanese Jujutsu, and also a 10th Gen Shihan from the Daito-ryu Sagawaha. In other word, I can't find any other person in the world who is more appropriate to do this research.

Sagawa sensei stated far much stronger statements about the theory that Takeda Sokaku was the creator of Daito-ryu. For example, he said that it was him after becoming "Sohan" (a title created from the word "Soke" and "Shihan") for a short period who went to the library and filled the gap in the succession line in Daito-ryu.

Takahashi sensei's research has revealed other things. In analyzing martial arts which existed inside Aizu clan (using primary doccuments from the "Nisshin-kan"), he found out that in fact Onoha-Itto ryu failed to establish themself inside the martial arts curricam of Aizu clan.

It was not Onoha-Itto ryu which become the art of the Matsudaira clan, but rather Mizoguchiha-Itto ryu.

Other interesting fact is that he could not found a samurai familly in the category in the "Chikata Gokenin (a category between farmers and Samurai)" records in the Aizu clan. Ofcourse that is only one example but very interesting.

I could go on but it is already a long post. Anyway, it is interesting that Ellis Amdur and Takahashi Ken postulate similar things. That Takeda was not basing his Daito-ryu on one art, but rather merged several ryu's (from both the sword and Jujutsu) and created Daito-ryu.

Mr. Scott, I think the most objective attitude to marital arts history is to postpone the decision what is historical true until it is back upped from other sources. The most common attitude in east asian traditional martial arts (be it Japanese, Chinese or Korean) is to falsify the origin of the art. This has deep roots in the confucian conception that if something has a more deep historical roots, it is better. As a result it happens often what is called in Japanese martial arts history "Ryuso wo Kataku suru"(to connect the history of a ryu to a well known tradition or a person). Virtually every traditional ryuha do this, so historian only conciders what can be backed upped by other materials as a (possible) historical truth. Other things are just oral history (even if it is written down in scrawls).

I think although many things are left to disccussions, one of your suggestions that Daito-ryu was created from Swordsmanship & Jujutsu seems to me the most possible thesis ,at least for me (from personal experience and analyzing techniques of Yoshinkan Aikido and to some part Daito-ryu).

By the way, I am interested why you are interested in the so called "Aiki Inyo Ho". What is the exact information about that in the Aizu clan and Daito-ryu (aside historical accounts from the mainline)?

[cxt]

Samurai Jack


This is last I'm going to post on this topic.

You show up, all panting about a topic that we were NOT even discussing.
All upset about claims and posits made ELSEWHERE.
You take offense at things people on OTHER forums posted--then you bring that anger HERE to talk about.

And while your here you keep "talking" about the wrongs various "aikido" people ON OTHER FORUMS IN OTHER PLACES DID/SAID etc.

I have pointed out several time that if the folks "elsewhere" annoy you so much to PLEASE TAKE IT UP WITH THEM---we didn't say it, we didn't do it.
We had nothing to do with your angst.

If your upset about it---then please take it up with the folks that actually DID what upset you.

I enjoy spirited debate and active discussion.

I just feel that your "straw man" thing--you know where you come here, set up "their" arguements FOR them, complain about the things "they" did and preceed to attack arguements YOU MADE FOR THEM--is not the way to go about it.

That would be like me going to another forum and bagging on "This Samurai Jack guy"---"I mean can you BELIVE what he said?????"



Chris Thomas

[thomas54]

Samurai Jack


This is last I'm going to post on this topic.

You show up, all panting about a topic that we were NOT even discussing.
All upset about claims and posits made ELSEWHERE.
You take offense at things people on OTHER forums posted--then you bring that anger HERE to talk about.

And while your here you keep "talking" about the wrongs various "aikido" people ON OTHER FORUMS IN OTHER PLACES DID/SAID etc.

I have pointed out several time that if the folks "elsewhere" annoy you so much to PLEASE TAKE IT UP WITH THEM---we didn't say it, we didn't do it.
We had nothing to do with your angst.

If your upset about it---then please take it up with the folks that actually DID what upset you.

I enjoy spirited debate and active discussion.

I just feel that your "straw man" thing--you know where you come here, set up "their" arguements FOR them, complain about the things "they" did and preceed to attack arguements YOU MADE FOR THEM--is not the way to go about it.

That would be like me going to another forum and bagging on "This Samurai Jack guy"---"I mean can you BELIVE what he said?????"



Chris Thomas

I totally agree.

[Nathan Scott]

Mr. Yawata,

Thanks for your post. It was not my intention to attack your post, but perhaps my frustration at the amount of poorly researched information that is posted to the net came through in my response. There are so many people publishing books, videos and articles on Daito-ryu, and very few of them seem to know what they are talking about. Then others quote them on the internet saying that it is "research".

I also am keeping an open mind on subjects like this until more information can be turned up. The points I've brought up on this subject are intended to be a counter point to the more popular discussion that Daito-ryu is a modern art made up by Takeda. There is not enough evidence to support either position, but that was my point. Many of the smaller points others have brought up that they say suggests Daito-ryu is a modern creation I feel are not compelling points in themselves, being found in other ryu-ha and koryu as well.

I am aware of who Mr. Takahashi is, and have a few of his articles - though I've not been keeping up with them. I'm glad to see he is trying to uncover more information about the history of the art.

The information from the Nisshinkan would be interesting to see, though there were other training halls being used to teach budo in Aizu. I believe Mizoguchi-ha itto-ryu was listed as otome-ryu of Aizu. I'm not sure what kind of history Ono-ha itto-ryu had there.

As I said, I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that Takeda was taught a single koryu called "Daito-ryu". As far as I know, the title chuko-no-so was credited to him because he "restored" a family art of his using Aizu oshikiuchi (supposedly a parallel line of Takeda family teachings developed within the Hoshina lineage) and his own experiences, which would be swordsmanship more than anything else. So yes, I think it is universally accepted that Daito-ryu is a name he assumed for his restored art, and that he merged other lines of teachings into the existing art.

Mr. Scott, I think the most objective attitude to marital arts history is to postpone the decision what is historical true until it is back upped from other sources.

I agree completely. That is all I'm asking of everyone else, many of whom seem to be jumping to conclusions based on whatever the new theories are - which are usually proposed by people who have never studied the art.

As a result it happens often what is called in Japanese martial arts history "Ryuso wo Kataku suru"(to connect the history of a ryu to a well known tradition or a person). Virtually every traditional ryuha do this, so historian only conciders what can be backed upped by other materials as a (possible) historical truth. Other things are just oral history (even if it is written down in scrawls).

Absolutely, and that was one of my points. Every koryu I've come across has unverfiable stories, or clearly fabricated stories regarding the founding of their art. I've come to view that as part of the lore and charm of the arts, not as a historical frustration. It is what it is, and there will never be black and white answers for all the historical questions. If you like the arts, toss on a white belt and study them. If you have issues with them, then sit around on the computer instead! ;)

By the way, I am interested why you are interested in the so called "Aiki Inyo Ho". What is the exact information about that in the Aizu clan and Daito-ryu (aside historical accounts from the mainline)?

I've been reading about Daito-ryu in english for many years, but it was only recently that I realized that the kanji for Aiki no In-yo-ho ( 合氣之陰陽法 ) was actually the same as on'yo / onmyo ( 陰陽 ). In-yo appears to me to be a mis-romanization of what is usually pronouncd on'yo or onmyo when put together. Basically, I can't say for sure exactly what it is at this point, other than it was supposedly a Shushigaku teaching called Aiki in-yo ho was taught to Takeda Soemon, who received a diploma in it from a school in Kyoto, and then taught it actively in the Aizu area. I couldn't make heads of tales of "in-ho ho" before, but when I realized it was the same as "on'yo ho", it occured to me that similar teachings exist in other koryu, and that maybe oshikiuchi and/or Daito-ryu had some important elements of these teachings ih them, which may even impact the technical curriculum.

Actually, everything I know about it currently and my reason for thinking it is an important aspect to research has already been stated in the following thread. I'd just be repeating myself again here:

Aiki no In-yo-ho (Aiki no On'yoho / Onmyodo) ('http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28991")

Regards,

[Samurai Jack]

Samurai Jack


This is last I'm going to post on this topic.

You show up, all panting about a topic that we were NOT even discussing.
All upset about claims and posits made ELSEWHERE.
You take offense at things people on OTHER forums posted--then you bring that anger HERE to talk about.

And while your here you keep "talking" about the wrongs various "aikido" people ON OTHER FORUMS IN OTHER PLACES DID/SAID etc.

I have pointed out several time that if the folks "elsewhere" annoy you so much to PLEASE TAKE IT UP WITH THEM---we didn't say it, we didn't do it.
We had nothing to do with your angst.

If your upset about it---then please take it up with the folks that actually DID what upset you.

I enjoy spirited debate and active discussion.

I just feel that your "straw man" thing--you know where you come here, set up "their" arguements FOR them, complain about the things "they" did and preceed to attack arguements YOU MADE FOR THEM--is not the way to go about it.

That would be like me going to another forum and bagging on "This Samurai Jack guy"---"I mean can you BELIVE what he said?????"



Chris Thomas

Chris Thomas,

To ease your frustration, I desprise personal attacks in place of civil intelligent discussion no matter the adopted style chosen. Let me assure you this is the forum for such acumen discussions as I rasied. A poster doesn't need to abuse the forum venue for intercourse declivity. Or for the excitement of fulminating prattle just because this is what the obtuse interloper, which often dominates a forum, comes to expects or demands. I would like to point out that I refrain this perniciousness.

I am putting forth openly an apriorism, which may raise ire for some, but never the less, required no matter how uncomforatble it makes the demagogue. As any educated individual knows there are dangers associated with information, i.e. misinformation heard enough without impugn is too easily accepted as fact. This is and has been the case for Daito ryu and Takeda. Both have been placed in a political pillory, unjustly. Therefore, an apriorism is called for inorder to bring the facts to light.

The pertinacious nature of some to abate the traditions of Daito ryu and the statue of Takeda have prevailed for sometime in order to bolster the blanishments of their own leaders and arts. A hinderance for those who are interested in the facts. Whose who don't bowderize what they read, because it doesn't fit their sensibilities. Those with discerning minds. Those who don't want others to make up their minds, and instruct them to think as they do. Those who are educated, and seek out all possibile avenues.

[Ron Tisdale]

Dear Jack,

May I suggest that you write your posts in MS Word before you post them? You'll find the spelling and grammer checkers are phenomenal, especially if you try to write in what some might call a pompous manner.

I'm not saying this to pick on you...my own weaknesses make it very difficult for me to understand your posts. You often use words incorrectly, the mis-spellings make it hard to determine which words you really mean to use, and the sentence structure is a bit tortuous. I have trouble ferreting out the meaning. This is probably due to my own failure to be more open minded.

Best,
Ron

[Samurai Jack]

P.S.
This just occurred to me. If we discussed the "rounding of corners" of Daito ryu by Uyeshiba, rather then the discussion of Daito ryu and Takeda here then we should take this topic of discussion to the Aikido forum. But, I don't think discussing Daito ryu and Takeda in this forum warrants an eradication from here.
If you would like to discuss the "rounding..." of Daito ryu by Uyeshiba, I would be happy to share my thoughts about it on the Aikido forum. Unless of course, phrased otherwise for a new thread in this forum, or it can provide a clear substantiation to this thread.
To intermittently addresses this idea, I would say "rounding of corners" may be misleading. Rather the construction of obtuse angles as a result of Ueyshiba's possible Chinese martial arts influence and principles, which he could have injected into the art. Thus, the result is the seemingly "rounding of the corners" perception. "Corners" may connote the sharp angles of Daito ryu employed in technique, which from what I have seen on Daito ryu tapes those "corners" are universal angles in which many martial arts employ, e.g. Kenjujitsu, Iaido, Jodo, Sumo, Judo, jujitsu, Karate, etc. Therefore, "rounding of corners" to properly identify the characteristics between both arts, acute observation and knowledge is critical. Rather it may be more accurate to say Aikido deviated from it's parent art from not pursuing in greater detail principles of Daito ryu and modeling from other arts. That is, Aikido is incompletus of Daito ryu techniques, as Ueyshiba didn't complete his studies in Daito ryu, for what ever reason. Just for an example, of course.

[Cady Goldfield]

Aikido is not "incomplete" Daito-ryu. If it were, it would be just good jujutsu. Ueshiba went in a different direction.

[cxt]

Samurai Jack

Ok, fine, was going to drop it--you helped change my mind.

The only reason your here is that you came looking for an e-fight--one that we pretty much don't wish to have.

Despite your feeble attempts to use verbage far in excess of your understanding of them---I will be happy to oblige you for the fight that your so looking for.

I can only conclude that the main reason your here--bitching, moaning, and whineing about things that happend elsewhere is that you fear to confront them.

No doubt, you got your butt kicked elsewhere and fear to confront them again.

Chris Thomas

[George Kohler]

The only reason your here is that you came looking for an e-fight--one that we pretty much don't wish to have.

Take it somewhere else.

[Moses Colon]

Take it somewhere else.
Why not continue??
I hope you dont have any personal reason for this not to continue?

[cxt]

Last

No, he does not.

I didn't wish for this to become some kind of e-fight, I you read my posts you'll see that I took some steps to head it off.

Then I allowed Jack to goad me into one.

I was not in keeping with my own views here and the mods pointed it out.

And my view is that people spoiling for e-fights on this topic should go elsewhere or address their comments to what people HERE have said.

I also don't care much for "straw man" arguements.

All that I have to say on this topic.


Chris Thomas

[George Kohler]

Why not continue??

Continue to fight? Is this what we what on E-Budo? If this is what you want you can go to another forum.

[Howard Thiery]

Prior to getting Chris' goat so to speak (it happens to the best of us) Jack was having a one man fight. Swinging, and kicking again and again he seemed to encounter nothing but air (the straw man). I guess if Mr.Colon enjoys watching such a thing there might be, for him, a point in continuing. However it is not what this forum is about. The only useful information in this thread was dredged up from old posts and other forums. The best advice came from Ron and George. Stick a fork in this one folks its not worth the server space it is taking up.
H

[Nathan Scott]

Hi guys,

I tend to agree that this subject has been discussed at length already. If there is some new information or points of view to express that haven't already been expressed (in clear english), then I'm all for reviving a topic. Otherwise, this is pretty repetitive.

As far as fighting goes, I'm usually pretty easy going here, but I won't put up with BS. For those who may be new to this forum - have a look at the AJJ Posting Guidelines - PLEASE READ! (http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5559) . I don't mind people disagreeing on something, but you will post using tact and decorum or I WILL nuke your posts, and if necessary, take further action.

Which reminds me, Mr. Last Samurai, you've been warned once before to sign your posts with your full, real name. See to it or I will delete all your posts to this forum. No kidding. I recommend just creating an automatic signature in your User CP at the top of the page.

PS. Mr. Robison kind of reminds me of L-Fitzgerald from the old days (don't ya think?)

XXOO,

[Moses Colon]

Hi guys,

I tend to agree that this subject has been discussed at length already. If there is some new information or points of view to express that haven't already been expressed (in clear english), then I'm all for reviving a topic. Otherwise, this is pretty repetitive.

As far as fighting goes, I'm usually pretty easy going here, but I won't put up with BS. For those who may be new to this forum - have a look at the AJJ Posting Guidelines - PLEASE READ! (http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5559) . I don't mind people disagreeing on something, but you will post using tact and decorum or I WILL nuke your posts, and if necessary, take further action.

Which reminds me, Mr. Last Samurai, you've been warned once before to sign your posts with your full, real name. See to it or I will delete all your posts to this forum. No kidding. I recommend just creating an automatic signature in your User CP at the top of the page.

PS. Mr. Robison kind of reminds me of L-Fitzgerald from the old days (don't ya think?)

XXOO,
I have sign with my fullname so i dont understand why you mention it mr Scott ?
Name is
Moses Colon i hope this helps or maybe show me the correct way to do it
Respectfully yours
____________
Moses Colon

[Nathan Scott]

Oh, O.K. I thought your name was someone you were quoting by the way your signature is layed out. Disregard!

[Samurai Jack]

It is sad that some feel the need to nip at my heels with slights and covert insults. I guess this is a forum of entertainment for them. Ron Tisdale, I am playing with words. Yet, I guess I asked for it. I knew what I was getting into. I have lurked here for many years because of the twists and turns, name calling, fighting and insults people when they are unable to discuss something. When all the want to do is hear their own prattle. It may explain why the same people post over and over again,and take up residency here. It is a shame when it becomes ghetto Internet. That isn't why I am here. I think that is evident. I am not here to fight. I don't care to fight with a key board, and half-witted insults with people I don't' know or care to know.

My initial post and those that followed dealt with people (many Aikidoka - de facto ) attacking Takeda and Daito ryu. People saying there are no historical connections ( not pertaining to being a koryu or not ), and Takeda is the sole originator of Daito ryu is not only wrong, but attacks the standards and measures of legitimacy for all. Now, I said this several times in my posts and the failing of some to understand is truly par for this course. I base this on the hundreds of threads here. Therefore, I am not surprised what I said was over-looked, lost in translation, twisted, or simply used for key-board Internet warriors.

Now someone did disagree with me stating Aikido is incomplete Daito ryu, it was simply an example ( nothing more ) of what another topic might be. I did mention it was an example at the end of the post. It was not intended for here for discussion, as it would cause thread drift. If this is something that interests people to discuss, please feel free to use my example to start a discussion. For that purpose allow me to lend the following, Aikido is incomplete Daito ryu based on the fact Uyeshiba was not instructed beyond the first densho. He didn't receive full accreditation such as Hisa Takuma did with a Menkyo kaiden certificate. He also was limited in the exposure to Takeda unlike others such as Segawa,who didn't get a Menkyo kaiden either. It can be said Ueyshiba learning and training in Daito ryu was incomplete. Or something like that.

For those who wear their hearts on their sleeves and feel offended by my statement, please keep in mind it was a hallow construct for another point, to another poster, and it was not intend to be a factual statement.

It seems the residents here wish to get back to their normal programing, I wish not to stop them. Adios.

[Samurai Jack]

Samurai Jack

Ok, fine, was going to drop it--you helped change my mind.

The only reason your here is that you came looking for an e-fight--one that we pretty much don't wish to have.

Despite your feeble attempts to use verbage far in excess of your understanding of them---I will be happy to oblige you for the fight that your so looking for.

I can only conclude that the main reason your here--bitching, moaning, and whineing about things that happend elsewhere is that you fear to confront them.

No doubt, you got your butt kicked elsewhere and fear to confront them again.

Chris Thomas

WOW, did I miss something! Was there a fight which I wasn't invited, and therefore; didn't show up! When I was lurking and will return too soon after I type this post, such posts would have be rolling on the floor in laughter.

Because, it is the same thing that happened to me in high school. See this kid wanted so hard to impress and bully others. His failing was he was intimidating enough to pull-off being a school bully. The poor kid tried really hard, in the face of so much laughter. You couldn't take him seriously. Unknown to me, one day, I was suppose to show up after school in the park for a fight with the kid. He had taunted me for several months, I didn't know at the time he was taunting me, the squeaks and crackles in his voice of lamented puberty didn't sound threatening. I guess, the reason for his behavior was he was jealous of me, my voice didn't crack, puberty was good to me. Anyway, paid little attention to him, brushed him off several times, and I guess he got more incorrigible because of that.

Long story short, I happen to be in school the next day after the so called fight at the park, I knew nothing about. When I saw him, he was upset and looked it. When I asked what the problem was, all I could do is laugh. Reminds me of the same thing here. Sorry Chris, but I didn't know you where looking for a fight. Maybe some other time, somewhere else. I am pretty tired of posting, I don't have the endurance.

Hey, Ron Tinsdale,

You know that advice you posted to me, maybe you should do the same for Chris. I don't need it. And Ron, advice in kind, "even monkeys fall out of trees" and "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." Hope this is beneficial, dog. :)
Enjoy.

[Ron Tisdale]

The problem is that your "play" only leads to confusion for me. I simply don't get what you are trying to accomplish. I will say, your last post was easier to read than the others.

I don't believe you are running into a clique problem exactly. I do think that your posts don't fit in very well here, because of your posting style, the factual problems in your posts, and the bias that you bring. I think the bias and posting style issues have been pretty well covered, so I'll speak a little bit to the facual errors.

Aikido is incomplete Daito ryu based on the fact Uyeshiba was not instructed beyond the first densho. He didn't receive full accreditation such as Hisa Takuma did with a Menkyo kaiden certificate. He also was limited in the exposure to Takeda unlike others such as Segawa,who didn't get a Menkyo kaiden either. It can be said Ueyshiba learning and training in Daito ryu was incomplete. Or something like that.

There are several problems with these statements. Ueshiba spent many years in close association with Takeda (even living with him for a substantial time). There is an interesting article by Stan Pranin on the certifications that Ueshiba recieved, and how they were equivalent (at the time) to the highest certificate available in Daito ryu. I'm searching for anything available on the web; if I find it, I'll post it for you. It also stresses that the difference between that scroll and the Menkyo Kaiden was about 80 techniques. Ueshiba was certainly instructed beyond the first densho though. That statement is blatently incorrect.

It's things like this that get you the responses you see here. Don't take it personally...just take it as an opportunity to grow.
Best,
Ron (judging from the post I just read before this one, this monkey is falling out of this tree now...been trying to be nice...but apparently not worth it)

[Samurai Jack]

The problem is that your "play" only leads to confusion for me. I simply don't get what you are trying to accomplish. I will say, your last post was easier to read than the others.

I don't believe you are running into a clique problem exactly. I do think that your posts don't fit in very well here, because of your posting style, the factual problems in your posts, and the bias that you bring. I think the bias and posting style issues have been pretty well covered, so I'll speak a little bit to the facual errors.



There are several problems with these statements. Ueshiba spent many years in close association with Takeda (even living with him for a substantial time). There is an interesting article by Stan Pranin on the certifications that Ueshiba recieved, and how they were equivalent (at the time) to the highest certificate available in Daito ryu. I'm searching for anything available on the web; if I find it, I'll post it for you. It also stresses that the difference between that scroll and the Menkyo Kaiden was about 80 techniques. Ueshiba was certainly instructed beyond the first densho though. That statement is blatently incorrect.

It's things like this that get you the responses you see here. Don't take it personally...just take it as an opportunity to grow.
Best,
Ron (judging from the post I just read before this one, this monkey is falling out of this tree now...been trying to be nice...but apparently not worth it)

Sorry Ron, it was an example of what people might discuss some place else. A gross example. A general example. A feeble construct. Something not intended to be discussed here.

Also, the only problem I have with Pranin sometimes, is simply he is the only researcher and or journalist on this subject who writes for non-Japanese. It would have been nice to have several others like Pranin doing the same work. Get a different angle on things.

[Nathan Scott]

Mr. Robison,

Would you happen to be the legendary judo master from South Africa, Jack Robinson? Just curious...

[kokumo]

(judging from the post I just read before this one, this monkey is falling out of this tree now...been trying to be nice...but apparently not worth it)

Just so you don't start to signifying

[Ron Tisdale]

:) With my luck, I'd probably sound like Little Kim....

R

[kokumo]

:) With my luck, I'd probably sound like Little Kim....

R

If you looked like her, we wouldn't mind. Even in the standard issue orange jumpsuit she's currently wearing....

But more seriously, is Grandmaster Flash an inheritor, a reviver, or a founder? Kicking it koryu style.....

[Cady Goldfield]

Arts don't appear from a vacuum. They have to build on the shoulders of predecessors. After reading from various sources, and experiencing a bit of practice, I'd lean toward believing that S. Takeda was incorporating quite old and established principles into his contemporary interpretation and "re-invention" of the system(s) he came up in. This is a natural process for creative people.

What he formed from his foundation and genius would be gendai if given a name and packaged as a system. But anyone who knows what they're looking at - or experiencing - would recognize koryu.

The borders of these areas are gray and fuzzy. Sometimes they don't warrent splitting hairs. Call 'em as you see 'em.

[Samurai Jack]

One last indulgance-last call before this bar fly goes home.

An experienced eye, is very valuable in the martial arts. A martial arts "secret wasa." Being able to recognize, to be able to distinguish, based on a strong background and proper training allows provides a crystal clear picture. Yet, so many are subjected to weak instruction, poor training, and most of all balderdash they never get the chance for a crystal clear picture. But instead, they get a foggy picture that is undefined and inaccurate. Thus, how they interpret what they see is just as fallible. It should not be that way for them. Looking with an eye of experience at Takeda and understanding his world of martial arts a person has a greater chance of understanding Takeda, or someone like him.

Stanely Pranin was the first person I know of who mentioned that Takeda was the creator of his art. If you go back to my other posts you will find the article I referenced which mentions that in AJ 1995. Stanely Pranin more recently again mentions his belief in his own forums. The posts that followed where authored by Aikidoka and friends of his agreeing with Stanely's idea. I am not sure if this is Stanely's idea, and if not I don't know where he acquired it. In either case, Stanely merely make a neutral mention of it. He doesn't make mention of it being detrimental or advantageous. My observation is, Stanely's thoughts have turned into a telephone/internet game. It seems people seeing Takeda in a fog, have found a new bone to pick. But, those with substantial experience and clear understanding of Japanese martial arts, Koryu in particular, see assurances in Takeda’s claims that affirm he was not the only one behind Daito ryu. Of course Takeda wasn’t the type of man to focus the credit on himself for his contributions to the art. Otherwise he could have easily said, “ I created it all.” Who would have deigned him of that claim when he was alive?

The sophisticate martial artist (SMA) will be inclusive in a broad scope of information. The SMA will not take one statement as fact. The SMA withholds snapping at a judgment and critically observers all conditions. The SMA puts up what he hears or reads against their own eye of experience for evaluation. Those who like scuttlebutt, and engage in parlor games delight in fancy possibilities, as the most common and likely give way to boring factual and bland conversations that don’t excite the imagination, nor lend to their ruse.

[Nathan Scott]

The posts that followed where authored by Aikidoka and friends of his agreeing with Stanely's idea.

Not all of them, brother.

For those of you convinced Takeda made up Daito-ryu himself, or even that he was not of the samurai Takeda line, I've got a question for you to ponder.

Sokaku was not known for being humble or soft spoken. He didn't hesitate to use the Takeda-bishi mon of the "Takeda Shingen" family line, or claim a lineage through the famous Takeda family. Historically there were a number of "Takeda" ryu-ha that existed, and surely not all of them were legitimately connected to the Takeda family. In fact, even now there is a Takeda-ryu making unsubstantiated claims to the lineage of the Takeda family. So taking into consideration Sokaku's character, and his obvious pride in the Takeda family name, why didn't he just re-name his art "Takeda-ryu"? If there was a family art, it was likely called called that at some point anyway, and since the Takeda name is famous, and the teachings are derived from that family, why call the art "Daito-ryu"? Is it possible that Takeda felt compelled by obligation to honor the core parts of his art to something else other than his family name (ie: Daito Yashiki of the Minamoto clan). If Sokaku was someone trying to fabricate a samurai lineage through the Takeda clan, calling his art Takeda-ryu would have been a better move for furthering an unfounded claim to such legitimacy.

It just seems to me that simply claiming Takeda-ryu would have been the most logical choice for his art if he was going to just toss something together on his own. Hmmm.....

BTW Mr. Robison, does this mean you're pretty much going to ignore my last question to you?

[Samurai Jack]

Nathan, to answer you question, I don't know. I didn't realize it wasn't a rhetorical question. You are right not all of them are Aikidoka, you posted differently then others. T'is, the reason I started posting because simply, I agreed with what you said, and didn't agree with the majority.

Nathan, you have touched on something interesting about TakedaIf Sokaku was someone trying to fabricate a samurai lineage through the Takeda clan, calling his art Takeda-ryu would have been a better move for furthering an unfounded claim to such legitimacy. It would then reason, if this was true, that Takeda was fabricating samurai lineage, he was also be fabricating himself as a samurai. I find this highly unlikely, due to documentation and those he trained including Ueyshiba so said, that it was Takeda that taught him Budo. Ueyshiba, Kitaro, Segawa, Takuma, and thousands of others like police, government, and especially the military, and a judge that he was brought in front of, didn't doubt Takeda's lineage. Yet, today, Aikidoka do!?!?!

For those wondering, the reason I pointed out that the posters that followed where Aikidoka ( mainly )was to illustrate that no Aikidokai ( at the time I read what S. Pranin suggested ) asked S.Pranin questions of what he said about Takeda; who, what why, and where. That includes me, but I don't post there. It would have been very informative if S. Prainin would have said how he came to believe Takeda was the sole creator after he mentioned it on the net. He didn't for what ever reason. The following posters didn't seem concerned to question S.Pranin's speculation about Takeda, and though some posters supported S. Pranin's notion about Takeda. I am indicating, rather simply, where I think the notion of Takeda as being the sole creator of Daito ryu came from, and how it manifested it's self into the telephone game of misinformation. A situation that was demonstrated in this and the other AJ thread.

I don’t know why many Aikido didn't shun the notion of Takeda not being the sole creator, due to the climate it would be advantagous. I understand the power Stanley Pranin's words that influence so many Aikidoka. But, I would have guessed it would have been beneficial to Aikidoka to dismiss S. Pranin's notion about Takeda considering the document dissonance that has exist between Aikidoka and Daito ryu and Takeda for so many years.

[JMB]

Hi all,

If Sokaku Takeda was not the originator of Daito Ryu then did his teacher not transmit the art to any one else? Or wider transmission in the prior generation? Is there any evidence of this?

I do not subscribe to the view that he created the entire Daito Ryu curriculum, nor that he inherited it whole, but it is facinating debate.

Cheers

[Gary Gabelhouse]

Hello All,

I have been a Daitoryu Aikijujitsu student under Kenkichi Ohgami-Sensei for twelve years. Ohgami-Sensei was a senior student of Takuma Hisa. Some years ago Ohgami-Sensei had written the first approved biography of Takuma Hisa (Hisa acknowledged and approved of him doing so while still alive). Over the past few years, we have translated that biography into English as well as Ohgami-Sensei's book on Daitoryu techniques. The biography is based on a number of recorded interviews and also on a sea of correspondence between Hisa-Sensei and Ohgami-Sensei

Takuma Hisa, having lived with both Ueshiba and Takeda, has some incredible insights on the development of BOTH Daitoryu AND Aikido. Some of the information within this book will cause heart burn for some, and other information is at least 90 degrees different than what has been written by Pranin-Sensei.

The book was purchased by Lyons Press and was edited by George Donahue (previously MA editor from Tuttle) who reads and writes Japanese fluently and is a senior Budoka. George resigned from Lyons and the book lost steam and was sold to Radix Press. It should be on shelves this summer.

Anyway, as to the issue of the origin of Daitoryu--the truth, according to Hisa-Sensei contains elements of BOTH sides of this e-Budo argument.

Best Regards,
Gary Gabelhouse

[Mark Jakabcsin]

The book was purchased by Lyons Press and was edited by George Donahue (previously MA editor from Tuttle) who reads and writes Japanese fluently and is a senior Budoka. George resigned from Lyons and the book lost steam and was sold to Radix Press. It should be on shelves this summer.

Anyway, as to the issue of the origin of Daitoryu--the truth, according to Hisa-Sensei contains elements of BOTH sides of this e-Budo argument.

Best Regards,
Gary Gabelhouse

Gary,
When the book becomes available please post the title, etc here. While I don't actively train in DRAJJ anymore I do enjoy collecting the various printed material.

Take care,

Mark J.

[thomas54]

I have many things to say about this theme.

BUT first there is an excellent article about that on Aikido Journal.

http://www.aikidojournal.com/?id=1758

[Josh Reyer]

Hello All,

I have been a Daitoryu Aikijujitsu student under Kenkichi Ohgami-Sensei for twelve years. Ohgami-Sensei was a senior student of Takuma Hisa. Some years ago Ohgami-Sensei had written the first approved biography of Takuma Hisa (Hisa acknowledged and approved of him doing so while still alive). Over the past few years, we have translated that biography into English as well as Ohgami-Sensei's book on Daitoryu techniques. The biography is based on a number of recorded interviews and also on a sea of correspondence between Hisa-Sensei and Ohgami-Sensei

Takuma Hisa, having lived with both Ueshiba and Takeda, has some incredible insights on the development of BOTH Daitoryu AND Aikido. Some of the information within this book will cause heart burn for some, and other information is at least 90 degrees different than what has been written by Pranin-Sensei.

The book was purchased by Lyons Press and was edited by George Donahue (previously MA editor from Tuttle) who reads and writes Japanese fluently and is a senior Budoka. George resigned from Lyons and the book lost steam and was sold to Radix Press. It should be on shelves this summer.

Anyway, as to the issue of the origin of Daitoryu--the truth, according to Hisa-Sensei contains elements of BOTH sides of this e-Budo argument.

Best Regards,
Gary Gabelhouse


Mr. Gabelhouse,

Would you happen to know the Japanese title of Ogami's book?

[Nathan Scott]

Hi all,

I've been reading a translation of "Tengu Geijutsu-ron" (The Demon's Sermon on the Martial Arts, by Issai Chozanshi - translated by William Scott Wilson). I came across an interesting section about martial arts instruction. The Tengu Geijutsuron was written some time in the early to mid Edo-period (1700's). It's an interesting read all around, but the following section really caught my attention (pgs. 105-106):

...At first instructors would teach [their students] techniques, but say nothing of the principles that were hidden within them. They only waited for their students to uncover those principles by themselves. This is called "drawing [the bow], but not releasing [the arrow]." And it's not that [the instructors] spoke grudgingly. They simply wanted the students to use their minds, and to master what they were studying in the interval. Disciples would thoroughly exert their minds and make great efforts. If there was something they understood on their own, they would still go and confront the teacher; and he would acknowledge their understanding when their minds were in accord. If the teacher released [the arrow], nothing would be learned. And this was not just in the martial arts. Confucius said, "I am not going to go on with the fellow who does not respond by lifting up three corners when I have already lifted up one." This was the teaching method of the men of old. In this way, the students were sure to be serious whether in scholarship or in the martial arts.

Nowadays, people are shallow and their resolution is not in earnest. They dislike the strenuous and love the easy from the time they are young. When they see something vaguely clever, they want to learn it right away; but if taught in the manner of the old ways, they think it is not worth learning. Nowadays, the way is revealed by the instructor, the deepest principles are taught even to beginners, the end result is set right out in front, and the student is led along by the hand.

Even with methods like these, students become bored and many of them quit. In this way, talking about principles takes the high seat, the men of old are considered inadequate, mastery becomes watered down, and students only make efforts in things that might have them climb to "new heights." This is, again, the spirit of the times.

Wow. It is amazing to me that martial artists in the 18th century (1700's), when ryu-ha were flourishing, were complaining about the exact same problems with teaching as many of us in the 21st century have been 300 years later. The computers and the internet have clearly discouraged interest in physical activities in our newer generations, but apparently that keen attraction the majority of people have to "the easy way" is a timeless issue that needs to be overcome.

Takeda Sokaku was observed by others to have the personality and behavior of a "Sengoku Period" (warring states period, prior to the Edo-period) type samurai - old school, serious, and severe. The way in which Sokaku taught budo (during keiko, not in regards to transmission of the art) is identical to the "old way" referred to in the section quoted above. Serious students of his, such as Sagawa Yukiyoshi, Horikawa Kodo, and Ueshiba Morihei all seem to have adopted the old way of teaching as well. Many have discussed the possibility of whether or not instructors like Sokaku and Ueshiba may have deliberately tried to conceal the "secrets" of their art from their students by "not teaching them", presumably in order to maintain their position and fame. But it sounds to me like they were in fact hoping to produce skilled, "thinking" martial artists for the next generation.

Drawing but not releasing,

[Dan Harden]

Hmm...The more things change , the more they stay the same.
When you combine that mindset and teaching style with the oft seen comment of "I only need one student", then see select people shoot past others, it leaves everyone to wonder:
1. Just who, was taught what?
2. Who was taught what,... due to who, was doing what in their own training?
3. Then who discovered what?

Here are some cut and pasted comments of Sagawa, discussing all three.


1. ……..Training must be done EVERYDAY for the rest of your life. That is the meaning of “Shugyo.” No matter how much muscle you think you aren’t using (you’re only misleading yourself.) The true execution of Aiki requires an enormous amount of solo training to condition the body (Tanren). It is not easy to attain. Most people would probably recoil if they knew what my training regimen consisted of…….
You won’t be able to manifest Aiki unless you continue tanren of the body everyday for decades. You must train the body, ponder and have the techniques “seep out” from the body itself. Even if you train everyday all the while changing yourself, it will take at least 20 years. Ten years or so isn’t nearly enough time. Your body has to truly be ready; otherwise no matter what you do you won’t be able to do “Aiki.”


On self discovery, not sharing, and waiting for students to “pick up their end of the sheet.”

2…... I am talking from my own experience. I did not learn this from Takeda Sokaku and I doubt there is another Dojo that will teach you this. At twenty I had built up my body to a beautiful inverted triangle proportion, much like a body builder’s. However this body did not do much for my techniques so I had to change /adjust my training methodology. The training needed to strengthen the parts needed for Aiki is different from “Normal” training. ........It is more important to strengthen the body than seek flexibility. No matter how flexible you make the body there is no point if it is weak. Making the body flexible AFTER you strengthen it is a different story altogether…Strengthening your body will bring about a “sharpness” to your techniques. However, if you are passionate enough you’ll realize what this means, since I drop hints on how to train during our normal practice.

3....I didn’t teach this myself until a little while ago. I waited for my students to discover this for themselves. “Kitaeru” or “train” means that you must train in a manner that allows you to affect the opponent with minimal effort. If you used 100% of your ability then it means you haven’t really trained. The body must be trained until it is a veritable fortress, then should you body-slam (tai atari) another person bigger than yourself, they will be sent flying.
4.……. Kimura has been training (tanren) on his own, so his lower back and legs are becoming different than others around him. I don’t often talk about how to train the body, but when I do mention it, Kimura goes out and does it. You can’t stop after two or three years. You must continue this and use it to change yourself everyday for the rest of your life.

So it is clear that "he picked up his corners" from his early days-he mentiones training solo at seventeen.
He talks about "self" dscovery above and beyond his teachers input, then clearly states he spent decades -NOT-teaching his true method, just occasionally dropping hints that apparently only a very few picked up on...... to start the process of self discover over again.
Maybe the more things change-the more they do stay the same.
Cheers
Dan

[Mike Haftel]

About "drawing, but not releasing..."

My instructor teaches via principle. He expressly explains and demonstrates what it is we are doing, how, and why. We don't learn (t)echniques, per say. We learn the foundations and inherent principles which are within the (t)echniques in order to build our own, personal, (T)echnique. I'm sure he doesn't give his students all the information and tries not to "lead by the hand." But, from my experience with other instructors (including Daito-ryu) he does concede a lot more of the information about training and what it is we are doing than what is being described in the latter part of this thread.

I don't think this method has jaded me, made me less serious, or adversely affected myself or my training when compared to the "hard" way of trying to "steel" the insights from an instructor who is "drawing the bow."

In fact, I think it has made my interest and my resolve increase.

However, I think not letting the cat out of the bag, so to speak, is important. But, there is a balance between withholding information in hopes of fostering "skilled and thinking" martial artists and providing enough of a glimpse in order to light a spark within the student.

I hope that all made sense...

[lucky1899]

A question based on my curiosity and active members' perspectives... (btw I know how to use the search function and I use it often so while this may be repetitive or overlapping with other threads, please excuse my question. You always have the option of not responding to it).

If a battle (war) was upcoming and a clan/army knew the battle was imminent, why would the teacher of the soldiers (samurai) withhold information that might help the clan win the battle? Given that we are talking about training in "peace time" (if there is such a time), I could understand and even promote the old style of teaching but if war is ongoing or imminent and I was a teacher/trainer/sempai/sensei/student, I would do everything I could to win and train my samurai to win.

Your comments and answers...thank you

Regards,

Andrew De Luna
Daito Ryu Renshinkan

[Mike Haftel]

A question based on my curiosity and active members' perspectives... (btw I know how to use the search function and I use it often so while this may be repetitive or overlapping with other threads, please excuse my question. You always have the option of not responding to it).

If a battle (war) was upcoming and a clan/army knew the battle was imminent, why would the teacher of the soldiers (samurai) withhold information that might help the clan win the battle? Given that we are talking about training in "peace time" (if there is such a time), I could understand and even promote the old style of teaching but if war is ongoing or imminent and I was a teacher/trainer/sempai/sensei/student, I would do everything I could to win and train my samurai to win.

Your comments and answers...thank you

Regards,

Andrew De Luna
Daito Ryu Renshinkan

I may be way off here, but Daito-ryu wasn't exactly a "war time" or "battle field" art, was it?

And I don't think the heads of the koryu taught, en mass, to legions of soldiers who were about to go out and fight. They taught within their families/clans, on a small scale.

But, I see where you are going. Why would anyone want to make their students learn something over such a long period of time if they were active soldiers/warriors who would need such skills immediately in order to survive or carry out the orders of their commanders?

I think the off-hand answer would be that those students, soldiers, or warriors most likely died in battle or were lucky enough to survive and learn from their actions.

Or, one other answer could be that the teachers who taught in such a way did so during a time when the feudal era of Japan was comming to an end and it allowed them to teach other ideals and hold their students to a higher expectation? A lot of the koryu still taught today probably weren't actively training real, fighting, active soldiers who faught on the battlefield, were they? They may have roots in even older systems that did, but even the koryu today are not what they used to be when the skills learned were being put into regular practice.

If what was being learned was different back then, it logically follows that how they were taught was also different.

This is really just speculation on my part, though.

[kenkyusha]

If a battle (war) was upcoming and a clan/army knew the battle was imminent, why would the teacher of the soldiers (samurai) withhold information that might help the clan win the battle?
Yes- think of the context- you get a bunch of people who run the gamut from professional soldiers to conscripted farmers... given the tenor of the times, would you want a bunch of folks who once armed, were knowledgeable about your 'secret' strategies? Too much chance of insurrection.

It seems to have been the case that every member of a fighting force got some instruction, but for most it was tatamount to 'hold that like that, good, now stab... excellent... let's get marching'. If people came back, they might stand to get more, but social control was the order of the day (particularly in the Sengoku Jidai when killing one's boss to get ahead was pretty common). Just my $.02.

Be well,
Jigme

[Brently Keen]

FWIW, Sokaku's father, uncle, grandfather, and his primary teachers all fought in various battles/wars. Sokaku himself grew up in Aizu as a youngster playing on the battlefield, even chasing and accusing imperial soldiers of theivery.

DR Aikijujutsu is known primarily as a self-defense/bodyguarding sort of art however the complete tradition encompasses both koryu battlefield arts, strategy, and self-defense. Therefore there are techniques for defending oneself or one's lord inside the castle, and there are techniques passed down from the Sengoku Jidai as well as more recent empty-hand goshin jutsu techniques. However I think that DR was particularly admired by military officers not for it's many different techniques, but rather for it's inherent strategy, the principles upon which the techniques are based.

With regard to preparing for battles, I don't think instructors withheld information in the way that is being suggested. Rather I think a principle perhaps more in line with "the need to know" determined what was being shown and practiced.

I believe the emphasis of training was not on the achievement of high-level, individual skills and abilities so much as trying to instill a "samurai spirit" or "esprit de corps" into the troops. IOW a disciplined, fighting mindset capable and willing to sacrifice oneself for one's lord and/or clan. Because victory for the clan depends more on the ability of the troops to carry out the strategy of it's leaders than on individual skill/knowledge. On the battlefield it's all about determining & seizing the critical moment. It doesn't matter how many footsoldiers know all the okuden or gokui, what matters is that they can maintain their readiness, and follow instructions accordingly.

Sokaku Takeda taught that even an expert can be defeated by a layman if the expert is negligent. Therefore, it's not the "expertise" that matters most, but rather avoiding negligence and upon recognizing it -- seizing that moment instantaneously.

A gendai art might be characterized by a certain pursuit of self-realization/mastery, enlightenment, or high-level of individual proficiency, perhaps measured by success in competition or duels. But a koryu art might be described as more pragmatic - in this sense DR would certainly be characterized as a classical tradition steeped more in functional strategy than in aesthetic form.

Respectfully,

Brently keen

[Brently Keen]

I would also like to add that along with emphasis I mentioned in my previous post, I think much of the "technical" training for battles was rather simple tanren training preparing the body right along with the mind. Like Jigme mentioned however, the actual kind of techniques taught were likely rather simplistic (See Heiho Okugisho for examples of Sengoku era drills).

Brently Keen

[jonesin]

Sokaku Takeda taught that even an expert can be defeated by a layman if the expert is negligent. Therefore, it's not the "expertise" that matters most, but rather avoiding negligence and upon recognizing it -- seizing that moment instantaneously.



Excellent concept/thought. We are constantly looking at "perfecting" technique in our practice and using kata based systems to get the body to have muscle memory to complete the necessary movements for defense/attack. But many forget that the study of something as broad as Daito Ryu must be an all encompassing study of the way to always win.

The way to always win is to not be caught "negligent" as Mr. Keen states. Now, to say you will "always" win is a stretch, but that is the mindset that needs to be resident in the spirit.

You can learn every technique in the Ryu, but if you do not have the ability to avoid negligence, the techniques become irrelevant and many years of study may have been a study in art not martial arts or ways.

Anything left out of the teaching may have been to simplify the study and have them hone the few techniques to allow them to be as "perfect" as possible and part of their every movement. Thus giving the student something tangible to use in a confrontation. The development and learning of the exhaustive number of techniques to follow as one became one with each technique.