Ueshiba-ha Aikibudo vs. Takeda-ha Aikibudo

[Nathan Scott]

Hello,

Per request in a recent PM, I am submiting the following question for discussion by those interested:

Ueshiba S. taught what he called "Aikibudo" for a time during the pre-war years, between teaching Daito ryu and modern Aikido. Some of this can be viewed in Ueshiba S.'s book "Budo Renshu".

Tokimune T. Soke also created/restructured an art he called "Daito ryu Aikibudo" that appealed to modern society a bit more (Kyu/dan system, Takeda-den Ono-ha itto ryu kenjutsu, etc.).

Were either of these events influenced by the other, and how different (or similar) are these two "Aikibudo's"?

Regards,

[Ron Tisdale]

What, no takers? I am trying to wait for the opinions of someone else first....ya'll have to the end of the day......

Ron :)

[Dennis Hooker]

Who was Ueshiba S. ?
Dennis Hooker
http://www.shindai.com

[George Kohler]

Originally posted by Dennis Hooker
Who was Ueshiba S. ?
Dennis Hooker


Ueshiba Morihei Sensei, founder of Aikido

[Nathan Scott]

Hello,

Ueshiba Sensei (Ueshiba Morihei) was this guy who made some art called "Aikido". :)

Ueshiba Sensei was (arguably) an advanced exponent of Daito ryu under Takeda Sokaku S., and before founding Aikido he had changed the name to Aikibudo for a few years. During that time, some of the well known pre-war students of Aikido (Shioda S., Mochizuki S., etc.) were students and received mokuroku under this name. Many of the techniques were documented in a privately published book called "Budo Renshu", which I suspect a member of DR would refer to as Daito ryu Jujutsu (not Aikijujutsu).

I could probably shuffle through my books when I have the time to figure out when Ueshiba S. used that name (any other takers?). But one question that comes to mind was who was using the term Aikibudo first, and is it likely that either Tokimune S. or Ueshiba S. were influenced by the other's choice of terminology and perhaps curriculum?

That's the topic.

Do we need some "lighter" threads right now? :)

Regards,

[RDeppe]

Nathan, Dennis Hooker (like everyone else) knows who Morihei Ueshiba is and what he did. I think Dennis was poking fun at your inconsistant naming convention: Ueshiba S vs Tokimune T. Soke.

I have to say, it's the first time I've seen Morihei Ueshiba refered to as Ueshiba S.

It's a good question BTW-- unfortunately I don't do aikijujits/aikibudo nor have the historical background to address the answer.

Best regards,
Robert

[Nathan Scott]

Fair enough.

The "S." is obviously short for "Sensei", which is a generic term and cumbersome to type repeatedly when discussing multiple teachers in the same paragraph. "Soke" is a bit more of a unique title, and probably warrants being spelled out (although I'm sure nobody would be offended if I simply called him Sensei).

I've seen this short hand done before elsewhere, and kind of like the (at least) implied attempt at respect when referring to instructors. If ya'll think it is ridiculous or confusing, I'm happy to drop it.

BTW, Takeda Tokimune was a self proclaimed "Soke", and Ueshiba Morihei was a self proclaimed "Doshu". So we can use these terms if they are more comfortable, or simply call everyone Sensei to there is no implied bias.

Communication is designed to enable understanding between people, so either we understand what is being said or we don't.

Any opinions on this very important subject of title conventions? :D



[Edited by Nathan Scott on 11-15-2000 at 12:30 PM]

[George Kohler]

Originally posted by RDeppe
Nathan, Dennis Hooker (like everyone else) knows who Morihei Ueshiba is and what he did. I think Dennis was poking fun at your inconsistant naming convention: Ueshiba S vs Tokimune T. Soke.


Opps, I didn't notice that Dennis studies Aiki related arts.

[Ron Tisdale]

uhhhh, yep, he (Hooker S.) was being a tad humorous, I think. I myself dislike refering to M. Ueshiba S. as "O'Sensei". Especially when trying to objectively write about historical occurances or technical details. The honorific carries with it a certain implication to others of "hero worship" which I would rather avoid. I suspect that some others feel the same way.

Nathan-san, shorthand away as far as I'm concerned. But I'd really like to see some opinions on the actual question.

:)

One comment; Kondo S. this weekend seemed to be saying that the techniques in the ikkajo series may or may not have aiki applied in them. They may be performed as jujutsu, or as aikijujutsu. From one of the demonstrations he did at the end of the seminar, I think that the effectiveness displayed by Ueshiba S. and Shioda S. was not possible with straight jujutsu techniques. I think the aiki is what makes even many of the ikkajo techniques as devestating as they felt to me. Just my opinion. This is not to say that the aiki of the two arts is the same. Just that some level of aiki seems to be present in both (at least at the higher levels of performance[ick, bad choice of word?]).

Ron (now *that* should get things going) Tisdale

[Nathan Scott]

With all due respect, I agree with Ron-san regarding the "O-Sensei" thing (nice web page though, Mr. Hooker).

I'll bite:

Daito ryu exponents (well, Brently-san in particular) have stated that the Jujutsu waza can be performed with Aiki if the student has achieved a grasp of DR Aiki. But your comment regarding Ueshiba S. and Shioda S. come back to the question of "which Aiki"?

I think we all agree that they used aiki as defined "classicaly", but whether they used aiki as defined by DR (DR aiki) is another question all together. They sure didn't seem to teach DR aiki.

Regards,

[Ron Tisdale]

Gotcha! Ok, if both had it, were did Shioda S. learn it?

Ron Tisdale

:)

[Nathan Scott]

Hey, I never said that Shioda S. had DR aiki!! (did I?) :)

It is possible though. His technique was alot closer to Ueshiba S. than alot of the later students. It's also possible that Ueshiba S. did teach DR Aiki to some degree when he was still teaching DR and perhaps up to the Aikibudo days. If that was the case, it would explain the similarity.

But I can't say. I was never thrown by either of them!!

There's no doubt that the earlier Aikibudo and Aikido more closely resembled Daito ryu than the post-war versions.

Regards,

[Ron Tisdale]

Man, am I glad you have a good sense of humor...:)

What it may come down to is "stealing the technique". Some can do that, most need real personal guidance I think.

Someone ( :) ) recently told me "I don't mind if you steal my technique". He was even down right insistant that we do so....yelled at us for making him fly 14 hours to teach us just to have us keep doing what we already know.....:)

Certainly suggests that he was doing something different...

Ron Tisdale

[Nathan Scott]

What it may come down to is "stealing the technique". Some can do that, most need real personal guidance I think.

I definitely agree with this. Good point.

[Mark Jakabcsin]

"Hey, I never said that Shioda S. had DR aiki!! "

I don't necessarily agree with exclusive view of DR aiki that some have professed. I also note that this view is very different than the teacher's view of the individual that continues to push this view without backing it up. Regardless of that, it should be noted that Shioda S. took private lessons from Horikawa S. so he was most likely (read definitely) exposed to DR aiki at it's highest levels.

mark

[Ron Tisdale]

Hi Mark,

Can you give more specifics on this? The teacher, the statement which contradicts the exclusiveness of Daito ryu aiki? Inquiring minds want to know. Also, can you point to a good source on information about the connection between Shioda S. and Horikawa S.?

Ron Tisdale

[Nathan Scott]

Hi Mark-san,

I don't necessarily agree with exclusive view of DR aiki that some have professed. I also note that this view is very different than the teacher's view of the individual that continues to push this view without backing it up.

Well, that's a good point, but since he is one of the very few contributors to this list who is a known member of DR, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the purpose of discussion. The way I see it we don't have much choice unless we all join a DR branch that emphasizes aiki, train for quite some time, and then arrange with that branch's honbu to discuss the principles of DR Aiki publicly.


Takeda Tokimune S. defined Aiki in "Daito ryu Aikijujutsu - Interviews" / S. Pranin, pg. 53:

"Aiki is to pull when pushed, and to push when you are pulled. It is the spirit of slowness and speed, of harmonizing your movement with your opponent's ki. It's opposite, Kiai, is to push the limit, while Aiki never resists."

As mentioned previously, this sounds an awful lot like how I think most people would define the "classical" definition of aiki.

However, knowing how secretive DR is with their art, statements like this could be the "omote" only. I'd be surprised if at least aspects of DR did not apply aiki in this way for some of the waza. But this could only be a convenient, public answer to a deeper set of principles (ura) that they would prefer not to have to answer publicly. Unfortunately, we don't know. Only senior DR Aikijujutsu members know, IMHO.

Regards,

[Nathan Scott]

Hey guys,

I've taken the liberty of submitting this topic at the AJ BBS as well. I'm not sure how much further we're going to get without some comments by someone with more historical insight:

http://www.aikidojournal.com/ubb/Forum21/HTML/000011.html

Regards,

[Earl Hartman]

Originally posted by Nathan Scott

"Aiki is to pull when pushed, and to push when you are pulled. It is the spirit of slowness and speed, of harmonizing your movement with your opponent's ki.


I know that I'll catch hell for this, and I never said I knew anything about DRAJJ, but the above quote by Tokimune S., taken by itself, makes DRAJJ sound a heck of a lot like Tai Chi Chuan to an outsider who knows nothing about it. If this is the principle of DRAJJ, even if it is only the omote, then it is hardly unique AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE. Tai Chi Chuan is based on it, from everything I've been led to believe (and from what very little I have practiced).

However, the devil is in the details. DRAJJ is a kind of jujutsu, that is, it is primarily grappling. Tai Chi deals primarily with strikes. In any case, it is in the details of specific techniques in different arts where differentiation comes.

Just a thought. No flames, please. I am NOT saying that DRAJJ and TCC are the same thing, only that if the above quote bears any relation to what the aiki of DRAJJ actually is, then it is not a unique principle, even if DRAJJ has a unique interpretation and application of it.

Earl

[Nathan Scott]

Hi Earl-san,

I hear what your saying, but what I was proposing was simply the possibility that the previously mentioned quote by Takeda T S. was a basic application of aiki, and that this is the type that is already commonly known definition used by the rest of the Budo world. That means he could define it that way if asked, and not be lying but also not be giving away the deeper aiki principles that they may or may not have.

It could be that not all levels of aiki as used by DR are secret - only those levels that are, well, not known by others outside DR! :)

Don't know, just a thought.

Regards,

[MarkF]

[quote][b]"Aiki is to pull when pushed, and to push when you are pulled. It is the spirit of slowness and speed, of harmonizing your movement with your opponent's ki. It's opposite, Kiai, is to push the limit, while Aiki never resists."

[quote][b]

Earl has the right idea, as this describes most koryu as well. The push-pull method has also been described as tai jutsu of judo, or tai sabaki in action. Isn't this a good description of "minimum effort, maximum benefit?"

Funny, but this was one point I absolutely understood well from those interviews. Since my exposure to aiki is limited, would this interpretation then be wrong?

Mark

[Nathan Scott]

That's what I picked up from Judo too. A popular quote circulating these days tells of how you could grab Mifune Sensei (famous Judoka) and try to push and pull him, but it was if he was not there. You were simply holding on to an empty gi.

A perfect example of this type of aiki. I find this general concept to be wide spread in the martial arts, as it vastly improves the efficiency and effectiveness of any art.

Art's that don't use this common type of aiki can be understood as "power against power", attempting to use superior tactics, speed, timing and distancing to beat your opponent. This type of approach will beat most of the people most of the time; as long as they are not stronger, faster, or better skilled than you.

I think alot of systems apply the general definition of aiki to their art whether they cite it as aiki or not.

Some DR exponents maintain that the aiki used in DR is different in some regard, but I wonder if they wouldn't include the general definition as the foundation or at least one aspect of DR aiki.

Regards,

[Mark Jakabcsin]

Ron,

My comments come from personal experience with Okamoto Sensei during his numerous trips to NC. On several occasions during his visits he demonstrated and discussed how the principles of aiki are actually in other arts like judo and aikido. However, very few people understand these principles to there fullest and us them in a very raw and unrefined method which limits their effectiveness. He demonstrated to us that the specific shape (?) of his infinite cirlces can be found in numerous judo techniques. I believe he shows the relationship in principle to help us better understand the principles and see the infinite methods they can be employed in. Having attended his seminars at dojos outside of NC I also note that he does not always show this to everyone.

The information about Shioda S. training with Horikawa S. was from a verbal discussion with Inoue Sensei with several members of our dojo during a social visit to the Yoshinkan in Japan in 1999. He stated that Shioda S. would make everyone wait outside the dojo for hours while he and Horikawa S. trained in private.

Nathan,

You are welcome to give the 'benefit of the doubt for the point of discussion' to anyone you want, however, I also note that in this case your own criteria of 'train for quite some time' and 'only senior DR aikijujutsu members know' is not met. As far as saying that '..we don't have much choice..'I would disagree and feel that critical thinking and not accepting answers that are always 'secret' would be more prudent.

With regards to Takeda Tokimune Sensei's definition of aiki being the 'classical' or 'omote' definition with a more secretive definition used in private I can not refute that line of thinking but find it unlikely. I have found with aiki that the best way to hide it is out in the open and in plain sight. The definition that you quoted could be read throughout a person's lifetime and they could find new meaning in it at each stage of their training. Does the definition really spell it out clearly or could you literally write a book about the definition and subject? The theory of relativity is defined as e=mc2 but does that help you understand it if you don't know a hell of alot more than that? In essence, Tokimune Sensei's definition has a tremendous amount of information and possibilities encompassed within it and as one trains they will relate to more and more of the nuances of the the definition and the art.

mark

[Nathan Scott]

Hi Mark-san,

Thanks for a very interesting reply.

I've never heard mention before publicly or read of Shioda Sensei having trained with Horikawa Sensei anywhere. I'm suprised that Inoue Kaicho would have confided this to visitors! I suppose it could be seen as a politically sensitive subject.

But that would explain why Shioda Sensei looked a little different in his application than other Aikidoka.

I understand your point about the DR contributor here, and would agree and re-state that anyone who has not achieved Menkyo Kaiden or the equiv in their art is not credentialed to speak fully on behalf of their style. To me, that is a given, and it means that I take most comments with this in mind (unless they are direct, verifiable quotes to someone who is Menkyo Kaiden or equiv level).

However, the fact remains that this contributor is the only publicly known DR exponent of any level that has come forward and offered opinions about aiki and related matters. Everyone who has contested his point of view has, to public knowledge, not achieved an equiv level in a DR aiki branch. That does not mean that he is correct, but just that when speaking of DR he is the only DR exponent we know of that has offered insight to the style. I think it is a bit presumptuous to insist he is wrong, unless one of us submits credentials and experience in DR to back up the opinion (or direct, verifiable quotes by senior instructors of DR).

Until there is reason to believe DR aiki is not any different than the generally accepted understanding/definition of aiki, I maintain that it is reasonable to allow DR the benefit of the doubt. But that's just my opinion. Members are welcome to take issue with our DR representative if they have the experience or resource to enforce their opinions.

I look at it this way: if Obata Soke insisted that we have a sword technique that is unbeatable and cannot be defended against and I blabbed about it enough people would eventually want to know what it was. I could then rightfully say that it is an inner principle (or secret if you like) and not available anyone other than a few higher ranking members of Shinkendo. You could doubt the technique, ask questions, and attempt to make comparisons. But as long as we insist that the method not be released to outsiders or even members below a certain rank, you would have to give us the benefit of the doubt that such a technique might exist if we are to include it in discussions. You could refer to it as "the aledged unbeatable waza", or, "debanawaza as defined by Shinkendo", or something. It does not mean that it is true or not true. Just that we (most of us, at least) don't know and anything is possible.

Anyway, keep in mind that we also don't have to restrict discussions to aiki as defined by DR.

Also, your point about aiki as defined by Tokimune Sensei could very well be the case. It actually sounds like we are eluding to the same thing, really. There is a very general, basic definition that is somewhat commonly accepted. But the differences in aiki between styles may be varied, and DR's application may be "complex" or intangible enough to make verbal/written analysis difficult if not impossible. Also a convenient excuse not to offer information that most in DR would probably prefer to keep private!

Thanks for the insight,



[Edited by Nathan Scott on 11-16-2000 at 05:38 PM]

[Earl Hartman]

I think part of the confusion here stems from the fact that some people seem to equate a principle with a technique. They are not the same thing. If it is a proper technique it is only an expression, in concrete terms, of the principle which underlies it, not something separate from it.

In a martial situation (OK, a fight) there is always, theoretically at any rate, a proper response to any action by the enemy. If aiki means "blending", or "harmonizing", or whatever, then any technique that makes use of this principle can be defined as aiki.

For instance, there is in kendo a technique called "nuki-do", in which, as the enemy attacks with an overhead strike, you slip under it and cut him in the side as he goes past. This is blending in the sense that you are making use of the movement of the enemy and not resisting him; that is, it is the perfect response to the given situation. It is thus in harmony with the flow of the fight, that is, it is aiki. As a technique, it makes perfect use of the concept of aiki as it has been expressed in the context of this discussion: he pushes, you pull. It is even nore aiki-like, according to Ueshiba S.'s definition of "aiki is making the enemy do what you want" if you have deceived the enemy into going for what he only perceives as an opening, when in reality it amounts to a sucker punch: you offer him the bait, he takes it, you let him have it with a pre-prepared resposne after he falls into your trap. This is strategy, and it is ever changing: this technique will not work unless you have "ai'd his ki", so to speak. Thus, this will always change as the fight progresses; it will also change depending on your enemy, and the weapons employed, etc.

This is the expression of the constant interplay of "In-Yo" (Yin-Yang) as it manifests itself in physical phenomena (you can cue the spooky Zen space shakuhachi music now, Cady).

To extrapolate, if I may, in grappling, such as AJJ, using this natural phneomena to your advantage will mean that you must be intimately familiar with physiology and bio-mechanics, as Cady and others have said over and over again; that is, you must know how the person, and his body will act in any given situation. Any technique that makes use of these natural principles will be aiki; anything else won't. In any given art, the techniques will vary; some arts may have a deeper understanding of this than others and express this in different techniques.

Anyway, am I the only one who's getting a little sense of "deja vu all over again" on this?

[Joseph Svinth]

Perhaps this is changing the subject, but way back in the beginning didn't Nathan ask about what Ueshiba's aikibudo was like? Well, there are some minor descriptions of it in the US in 1935; the demonstrator was Isamu Takeshita. For some introduction, see my article at http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_svinth7_1199.htm . Anyway, following Admiral Takeshita's career closely might provide some insight. I believe Stan Pranin has already done some of that.

[Edited by Joseph Svinth on 11-17-2000 at 01:38 AM]

[MarkF]

Nathan,
Here is an example I think you will be familiar with:

If you learn real swordsmanship, you will understand why it is useless to go against a sword barehanded. Since students always learn one side of a martial art, they often don't understand the fake or simpleness in their techniques.

International Shinkendo Federation,
__________________
Obata Toshishiro



I look at it this way: if Obata Soke insisted that we have a sword technique that is unbeatable and cannot be defended against and I blabbed about it enough people would eventually want to know what it was. I could then rightfully say that it is an inner principle (or secret if you like) and not available anyone other than a few higher ranking members of Shinkendo

So here is an example, I think, of what you say, agreed, it was only an example, but when I questioned him on the possiblities of defending the sword empty-handed, it was dismissed as out of existence, so here is the "impossible" scenario.

So I think it is just a bit out of hand to state simply that one must be of a certain order of the art to understand and disseminate fact/opinion concerning that art. Some people, with the character and mindset to understand it, describe it, but ultimately fail to understand it, could be this fictional menkyo kaiden or judan, etc. Fact is simple. Some get it and some don't. Experience is not necessarily the arbiter of understanding, and if we are to use the example of E=mc, then Einstein's own opinion of what he understands must also stand beside it: "I am no better than anyone else. I am just intensly curious."

So how, then, does one burst out of a group and be the teacher of such a thing, while the rest, with the same experience, grade, understanding of aiki no jutsu, or anything else remotely related, not get it, but within this sphere, the same grade and experience as the teacher?

After all, some do get it immediately. I can't believe that anyone could say it is impossible, or that only one or two out of thousands taught, learn it, and these one or two, are chosen to be taught it, as well.

Earl,
I feel it, too, although not everyone has stuck with his/her side in round two.;)

Mark

[Mark Jakabcsin]

"(unless they are direct, verifiable quotes to someone who is Menkyo Kaiden or equiv level)."

Well Nathan I have shared what Okamoto Sensei has taught us, as far as verifiable, I could have some of the other folks that were there put in their two cents as well but then that probably wouldn't meet your criteria of verifiable. But then nothing the other individual states has been verifiable either, geez everything is secret with him, lol. Sure is easy to make claims of knowledge when you don't have to back them up because everything is secret.

If I shared the over 100 hours of video I have of Okamoto Sensei you probably still wouldn't be happy since he shared his thoughts over the course of time with several small demonstrations, many of which are not on video. Since he shared his thoughts only as we were ready/able to understand them it is unlikely that someone watching them out of the context of the actually training would understand the significance of what he was doing. Plus alot of what he trains isn't verbal but physical so if you can't 'feel' what he is saying you sure can't hear it. Lastly, I can think of two seperate occassions that he covered some of this material when the video wasn't on, once during a break at a seminar the other late at night after a seminar a few us found ourselves back at the dojo and we had an amazing 1 1/2 hours. Alot of this was about breathing but he did show a little how it related to other aspects. I just don't have the personal need for your acceptance or acknowledgement so you are welcome to any view you wish.

mark

[Edited by Mark Jakabcsin on 11-17-2000 at 08:01 AM]

[Ron Tisdale]

Mark J.

Thank you for that fantastic piece of information. I really appreciate your sharing that experience with Inoue S. I don't have a problem believing he would tell visitors this; I've met the man, and he is very open and willing to share. I've found a couple of informal sources now for the relationship between Horikawa S. and Shioda S. .... I either must have heard and forgotten, or didn't know. I think your statement sheds a lot of light on Shioda S.'s technique and mastery.

On switching sides: I'm not sure I have. I do know that what I recently experienced was a different level of what I had previously been exposed to. I'm not sure that it is a different thing altogether. The fact is, 4 years of yoshinkan training is not enough to know the breadth and depth of yoshinkan...eight hours of Daito ryu is not even a good taste. Just enough to wet the appetite.

Kondo S. struck me in much the same light as you described Okomoto S. and Inoue S. ... willing to share and have his secrets stolen. I guess that's a strong arguement against "you can't know till you've studied twenty years". These gentlemen certainly seem to hide their jewels in plain view.

As to rehashing this subject: Some of us have been lucky enough to aquire some new experiences. I guess that keeps the subject fresh for me.

Ron Tisdale

[Mark Jakabcsin]

Ron wrote: "As to rehashing this subject: Some of us have been lucky enough to aquire some new experiences. I guess that keeps the subject fresh for me. "

Ron, I agree with you there. While this is a difficult subect and it is certain that we will never actually resolve anything on this board I still find the discussion interesting, informative and helpful in my own quest to learn. Hearing others insight and experiences sometimes opens new areas of thought for me to explore. I realize not everyone shares this view and finds the whole attempt at a meaningful discussion of aiki as useless, so be it. Thanks to everyone that does get involved. Take care.

mark

[Dennis Hooker]

Well yes I was trying to be a tad bit witty there. However as far as I knew he could have been referring to someone named Ueshiba S. with S. being the given name, that would be the proper syntax. Also as far as I’m concerned all the gentlemen mentioned in the original post should be referred to with their full name and title. I believe they earned that respect. I also think that these gentlemen did not title themselves but had those honorific titles bestowed upon them by others who deemed it worthy. Now I have been in budo for over 40 years and damn sure “Don’t” know it all so there could have been someone named Ueshiba S. with the S. standing for a given name. That is not unusual in Japan with folks changing names and adopting sons into the family of the bride and such as that. Names and titles are a bit confusing in Japan and I would sure defer to Mr. Skoss and company with regard to that.

Now here is my take on the teacher some folks call O-Sensei and what he did and his background. Each of these gentlemen did remarkable things in their own rights. Why try to fuse their life’s work into a common denominator. I don’t think one exist at all and looking for one only puts us further behind in our effort to move ahead.

I'll say this and get back to where I belong as the heat gets turned up toward us interlopers.

MOSAIC CALLED AIKIDO
Whether or not I know the complete history of Ueshiba Morihei, Sensei’s training is not important to me. I am concerned with the final outcome of his life's work, and how that outcome can make my life and the lives of those around me better. Some of you have, for some time now, been concerned with the roots of Aikido. You look to this art, or that art, as the foundation of Aikido. Understanding some of the principles that were used in the development of Aikido may be a good thing. It is not a good thing if in doing so you are redefining Aikido in the terms of the arts you are examining.

Morihei Ueshiba was a master craftsman who blended a mosaic of martial art and philosophical doctrine into a intricate and beautiful painting. The master himself, as well as his emissaries offered this work to western culture, and it was graciously accepted. Many of the elements that made up this masterpiece had been available to western culture prior to the arrival of Aikido from Japan, but none had gained a substantial foothold in the west.

At a time when western (particularly American) culture was not looking to Japan for anything other than transistor radios and trinkets a movement was about to be born. Exceptional men armed with Ueshiba Sensei’s art, and their own incredible ability, ventured into what could be perceived as hostile territory. Nowadays, it is easy to forget what the attitude was like toward the Japanese people in those early years after the war.

However, the art and philosophy of the founder and his students would transcend cultural boundaries. If what we read about these early emissaries is true, not only would they match their skills against masterful martial artists and prevail, but would win their hearts and loyalty in the process.

As a people we found in this mosaic called Aikido something that was captivating to us. I think, in part, we recognized in this art of Aikido the American pioneer spirit. The art was a blend of all that was available to the founder at the time. When he added to this his compassion for humanity and all surrounding it, we can, in retrospect, see that the whole of Aikido is much grater that it's parts. We must preserve the whole of Aikido for ourselves and future generations. At a time when the fabric of western morality is being ripped to shreds Aikido is a bastion of hope for our future. Aikido alone cannot restore the social and moral values of the nation but it can be a corner stone in rebuilding it. We must not let the small minds of greedy people rip the fabric of Aikido apart.

As children, my generation, and generations before us were taught moral and social values and the rewards of discipline at home, at school and in the church. This is no longer available to many of our young people. Many of the institutions that help form us are still around, but many young people have little interest in them. Many of them view morality as weakness and discipline as something to be avoided. The church is no longer as strong in the community as it once was, and even if they had the capability public schools are prevented from teaching morality. Social values are an issue that neither schools or many churches want to touch. Many young people today are growing up without a sense of moral or social values. In Florida we see it every day. Children who kill, rape and steal and show no remorse beyond than of being caught. In the past we could write these off to the occasional sociopath. Now it is becoming the norm rather than the exception.

In talking to many Aikido teachers, I find a growing desire for children's classes. At first, this desire comes more from the parents than the children. They find the traditional dojo is a place where their children can learn life skills that go beyond physical self-defense. The children find that correct discipline can be a good thing, and many hunger for it. The Aikido dojo is, to a certain degree, replacing more conventional forums for teaching correct social principles.

We must not forget that O-Sensei's desire was for Aikido to bring about peace through love. When I hear Doshu speak of praying for world peace I believe him, when I hear Saotome Sensei speak of peace through strength I believe him. It seems that this is a part of the mosaic some people are beginning to forget. Others are attempting to cover it over with efforts to redefine Aikido as just another martial art. It is this principle of peace, not war, that endeared Aikido to our society in the first place. We must not forget that the AiKi of Aikido has a different meaning than the AiKi of Aikijujitsu. Let us not lose that distinction. If we chose to accept the meaning of Aikido as defined by Morihei Ueshiba, and expressed by his many exemplary students, then we should not feel a need to justify our art by looking to the past for it's meaning.

Aikido is quickly approaching the main stream of our society. I believe it is because of O-Sensei's total art. Not just a piece pigeonholed as martial, philosophical or spiritual. Some of us may be better at expressing ourselves at one part of this discipline than another. However, together we make up the mosaic of Aikido. We need not and should not be replicas of one another. Let others spend their time looking to the past to find meaning for what they do in the resent. As for me I follow O-Sensei's dream as expressed by my teacher and rationalized by myself and look to the future.


There are those that say O-Sensei's teachings were beyond understanding. That he spoke in terms they could not comprehend. They believed his teachings to be a jumble of diagrams and concepts bearing little relationship to the physical art of Aikido, and they could not grasp the significance of it in their learning process. The diagrams he drew and the concepts he talked about are ancient universal symbols and theories expressed within his framework of understanding. I am a Master Mason, and many of the principles I learned on my journey to becoming a Freemason closely parallel the teaching of O-Sensei. I find no contradiction between the two. In fact I find that one set of principles support the other in my learning process.

There is an old saying; "you can't see the forest for the trees". This is beginning to happen to the mosaic of Aikido. Some people are so concerned with the individual parts of the art they can no longer see the beauty of the whole.

One person will say look at that brush stroke, that is a stroke from our school. There are more of these strokes than others, so this artwork is a watered down version of our school. Others say no, look at this brush stroke. It is from our school. There are not as many of these strokes, but it makes the painting complete, therefore this artwork is of our school. Yet others say no look at the paint, this is
what makes the artwork complete. Without the paint there would be no artwork.

Others would say that it is the pigment that gives the paint it's color that really matters. Others say no, look at the canvas that supports the artwork. Without it, the brush and paint would not matter. So it is the canvas that makes the artwork complete. This is commensurate with the makers of the brush, the paint, and the plaster taking the credit for painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

There are people that say if you really want to know what Aikido is all about come study with the martial arts that were it's source. Although very viable arts in their own right, they contribute but a portion of their color and texture to the mosaic of Aikido. The art of Aikido is greater than it's parts! The source and root of Aikido springs for the soul of it's founder.


]Originally posted by Nathan Scott
Hey, I never said that Shioda S. had DR aiki!! (did I?) :)

It is possible though. His technique was alot closer to Ueshiba S. than alot of the later students. It's also possible that Ueshiba S. did teach DR Aiki to some degree when he was still teaching DR and perhaps up to the Aikibudo days. If that was the case, it would explain the similarity.

But I can't say. I was never thrown by either of them!!

There's no doubt that the earlier Aikibudo and Aikido more closely resembled Daito ryu than the post-war versions.

Regards,



[/QUOTE]

[Ron Tisdale]

Hooker Sensei,

Thank you for your excellant post, and sharing your perspective with us. I must admit, I do feel in some sense chastised by your remarks. In the excitement of seeing new things, it is indeed easy to lose sight of the total picture of what it is we claim to study. While I myself do believe in looking back to arm myself for looking forward, there is much value in simply accepting things as they are, living in the present, and getting on with each moment as it comes.

I'll try to remember what you said here as I train. Maybe something that I've looked for else where is right in front of me. Something greater than the sum of its parts.

Thank you again,

Ron Tisdale

[Mark Jakabcsin]

Nathan,
I don’t mean to beat a dead horse but it has been suggested to me that I share a specific or two on how other arts use many of the same principles of aiki (this is in regards to our posts earlier in this thread). As has been mentioned by a particular party in the past, Roppokai uses a very specific shape to the circles used in it’s aiki techniques. Some here have felt that this shape is very secret and unique to Daito-ryu while I have taken the opposite view. During Okamoto Sensei’s numerous visits he showed us how several arts have the same shape embedded at the root of their techniques, however, very few people have realized this root exists or importance of it.

The specific shape that Okamoto Sensei’s Roppokai uses looks very much like a question mark (?). In the US, Okamoto Sensei calls this a no-shi. In order to help us learn the shape he showed us that if we took the Japanese characters ‘no’ and ‘shi’ and put them together we would get the correct shape. It is interesting to note that when we went to Japan, Okamoto Sensei instructed us not to talk about the no-shi in front of his Japanese students. Anyway, this shape is then used at different angles to accomplish numerous different results. There are specific reasons the shape is important and so exact but that goes beyond the scope of this discussion. At any Okamoto Sensei seminar in the US you will quickly learn that ‘no-shi’ is taught to everyone, even visitors at open seminars and is hardly a secret. While Okamoto Sensei does not keep it a secret, he doesn’t like it say….if someone were to make a newsletter and call it ‘No-Shi’. Of course, you could imagine that he would feel a person doing this would be unjustly attempting to claim his training/visualization idea and would dealt accordingly. So someone dumb enough to do such an act might feel that is safer to claim that no-shi is a secret. 

As noted previously, one of Okamoto Sensei’s three basic principles to aiki is circular motion, and the no-shi shape plays a large role in that basic principle. This particular shape can be found throughout other arts such as judo and aikido. Okamoto Sensei demonstrated this fact at various times using different judo or aikido techniques. One of the easiest to discuss would be osoto-gari. Okamoto Sensei showed us that the overall technique (as seen from tori’s body) takes on the shape of a giant no-shi. Tori’s body comes back slightly to disturb uke’s balance at the same time that his outside foot steps forward, then as uke adjust backwards for the disturbance in his balance, tori’s body comes through and swings like a pendulum sweeping uke’s leg and supported on his outside leg. If seen from the side, tori’s overall body shape resembles a big question mark, kinda tilted a little. I don’t want to get to detailed in this description and hope you can visualize from my half-assed description.

Okamoto Sensei, then showed us that hand motion used in osoto-gari also makes the same shape although much smaller. He said few people realized the power in these shapes or how to use them but that they were still present in arts like judo. For the best part of the demonstration Okamoto Sensei then did osoto-gari without using his leg to sweep or clip uke’s leg and without making the large no-shi body shape where tori bends at the waist. He showed that by having very good touch/feel, the correct shape, timing and understanding of uke’s conditioned response one can throw osoto-gari with minimal motion and remain in a preferred upright position and have a much stronger throw. He also used this demonstration to further show us that all leverage comes from the feet (the only part that touches the ground while standing) and how to use his concept of infinite circles. Both of these items are also part of circular motion and also found in numerous other arts. Okamoto Sensei did similar demonstrations with other judo techniques such as deashi-barai and okuri-ashi-barai and he has the most-wicked counter to ippon seoinage I have ever felt or seen.

While I could never duplicate the training in words I hope this helps you understand the similarities that do exist and that the 'secret differences' might not be what one person makes them out to be, nor is that person for that matter. There are many similarities between arts at their roots, how each tree grows and uses those roots may take on a different look, but roots is roots.

mark


[Edited by Mark Jakabcsin on 11-23-2000 at 08:30 AM]

[Nathan Scott]

Hello Mr. Hooker,

Thanks for a very well thought out post.

...so there could have been someone named Ueshiba S. with the S. standing for a given name. That is not unusual in Japan with folks changing names and adopting sons into the family of the bride and such as that.

It occurs to me after re-reading your last post that you may have asked your "Ueshiba S." question in honest curiosity. If this was the case, I do apologize. It is hard to train Budo these days and not know who Morihei Ueshiba Sensei is, and noting your Aikido dojo link in you signature I assumed you were proding me a bit for not using full titles.

I hope that it goes without saying that I do not mean disrespect to any instructors by not spelling out full titles all the time. Basically, I have the choice of either using a bit of internet-shorthand and participating in discussion or spelling everything out and risk getting fired. The Skoss' have a "one time usage" type policy in their books (first time usage - italisize the word) that I agree with and have largely adopted to my short hand. I hope it's not too confusing!

Sorry if I took you the wrong way. :)

I also think that these gentlemen did not title themselves but had those honorific titles bestowed upon them by others who deemed it worthy.

In the case of Shioda Kancho, he formed his dojo/organization using a "-kan/kai" system (sorry, if there's a term for this business structure I don't know what it is!). By doing so, he put himself in the position of being the "kan/kai-cho" (house/group boss). This title and structure is not unfamiliar to Japanese business companies, and while Shioda Sensei may not have given himself the title with a pompous attitude, when you form something like that you assume the appropriate title automatically.

For example, I am by default the "chief instructor" of my dojo. I never asked to be, or asked anyone to refer to me as such. But by forming my own dojo, I am in affect the "dojo-cho" (dojo boss), and in our groups case, the "shibu-cho" (branch boss/director) as well. I am, however, free to defer these titles and duties to someone else and remain the "owner" of the dojo if I wish (for more fun with titles, refer to the mind numbing interaction on the SAD groups BBS regarding dojo titles!).

Furthermore, if you make your own Japanese martial art, and opt to follow the "iemoto" system, it would be appropriate to assume the title as (shodai) "Soke" (head of the line of transmission). By forming an art and asssuming that system, you would assume the appropriate title when performing official duties.

I don't know how Ueshiba Morihei Sensei structured his art politically, but even if doshu was bestowed on him by others, it would still be up to him if he was willing to accept it publicly. While Ueshiba Morihei Sensei was definitely a unique person, areas such as titles tend to be very carefully considered and chosen from my experience with Japanese instructors. Just my opinion, FWIW.

It is also interesting to note that both Shioda Sensei and Ueshiba Sensei spent quite a bit of time mixing with those high up the social ladder, and were supported largely by contributions from VIP's. Nothing wrong with that, but another factor to consider when thinking about the significance of titles. Proper representation and perception would be critical to fostering these relationships.

I am concerned with the final outcome of his life's work, and how that outcome can make my life and the lives of those around me better.

I agree with this. In my mind one ingredient (technique) of the final outcome of the art has become increasingly neglected and weak overall, because energy has generally been focused on the spiritual/philosophical areas.

To the best of my knowledge, Ueshiba Morihei Sensei has always called his art a "Budo", throughout his whole life. Budo, by definition - or at least common application - is a martial discipline as the core of a way of life.

IMHO, if Ueshiba Morihei Sensei had wished for his art to be only philosophy or spiritual, and not concerned with effectiveness and matters of correct martial transmission, he would have told all of his students to not concern themselves with such unnecessary controversy.

I study and love Aikido, but an art is either a Budo/Bujutsu (martial art) or it is not. It is very simple. I believe that those Aikidoka that wish to write off the martial aspects of training should either rename their teachings, or talk the Aikikai into re-classifying the art as non-combative (not a martial art).

Personally I believe it is possible to train in the duality of hard and soft, of effective Budo and refined principles and morals. In fact, to attain such a balance requires a deep study of both IMO.

Some of us may be better at expressing ourselves at one part of this discipline than another. However, together we make up the mosaic of Aikido. We need not and should not be replicas of one another. Let others spend their time looking to the past to find meaning for what they do in the present.

I like your view as Aikido as a collective. Very interesting. And I would submit that I don't beleive that all Aikido-ka have to be proficient (effective) in their techniques, simply that they must try their best to be to the best of their abilities. As you point out, we all have our strengths and weakness', but the weak points are what really require attention.

Going back to the history of the Aikido and it's importance, this issue relevant to what you are trying to achieve. It is obviously not possible to "discover" what Aikido is about by analyzing one part of it's past (Daito ryu - the technical "half"). But since I'm trying to develop effective technique in my own training, and there are currenlty relatively few Aikido-ka around that can transmit this part of the art, it seem logical to me to research the source of Ueshiba Sensei's technical inspiration. I have to tell you, I've learned *alot* so far by doing so. I'm constantly saying to myself "oh, that's what this is supposed to do".

Just some perspective from side of the discussion. I respect your opinion and agree with much of your post.

Regards,

[Nathan Scott]

Mark J.-san,

Well Nathan I have shared what Okamoto Sensei has taught us, as far as verifiable, I could have some of the other folks that were there put in their two cents as well but then that probably wouldn't meet your criteria of verifiable. But then nothing the other individual states has been verifiable either, geez everything is secret with him, lol. Sure is easy to make claims of knowledge when you don't have to back them up because everything is secret.

Please allow me to clarify a bit where I'm coming from.

I respect your previous, recent experience and knowledge with Okamoto Sensei/Roppokai, and have been interested to read your comments along with several other contributors to this forum. Thanks for offering your perspective to the mix.

It's not that I'm infatuated with rank or the title of "menkyo kaiden". Menkyo kaiden is simply a level of initiation into a tradition, and a catalog of information that completes the students instuction (more or less) of the style (save for soden type stuff). It does not mean they are necessarily even the most talented exponents of the art. But it does mean that they have finally been given the full picture. As a result, they can now speak with authority and confidence regarding all technical aspects of the tradition as they choose. This is a different attitude than that shared by many modified/modern arts that emphasize the kyu/dan system. There is definitely a different mind set and method of teaching used in koryu and gendai (in most cases).

Okamoto Sensei is known to be a very open teacher, and has apparently said things like "this is all you need to know to learn aiki" (of something along those lines), and he may in fact have given students all the tools they need to develop Daito ryu aiki as practiced by the Roppokai. But not knowing Okamoto Sensei, and considering the conservative nature of the other Daito ryu branches I would not be surprised to learn that some significant "details" may have been left out. It's not that people lie about such things, just that they tend to only offer part of the full picture rather than give a full answer in cases of sensitive information.

Technically, if he were to openly teach all the principles, tactics and all other elements of the art, then he may as well simply offer Menkyo Kaiden to all his students. They would have been initiated into all the "secrets" of the tradition, and it would simply be a matter of time before they could theoretically achieve the talent needed to perform the waza effectively.

Anyway, it's not to say that your not correct in your view that Okamoto Sensei has openly shared all the important elements of Daito ryu openly outside of Japan (if I'm understanding you correctly), but in my mind at least, there is still room for doubt.

So to my way of thinking (from a traditional standpoint, since DR is a traditional art), we are all free to share our experiences, quotes, and theories here in hopes of better understanding the art and it's principles. But it can all be considered (with all due respect to all of us - except perhaps Mr. Threadgill who has a Menkyo in his art) information submitted by those who have not received full initiation into their tradition, and to me, a work in study in progress until Menkyo Kaiden has been awarded and it is clear that vital elements have not been withheld (which they often are).

It's hard to explain - I hope that made sense!

If I shared the over 100 hours of video I have of Okamoto Sensei you probably still wouldn't be happy since he shared his thoughts over the course of time with several small demonstrations, many of which are not on video.

Actually, I'd be quite happy! :)

I actually have not had a chance to see very much of Okamoto Sensei yet - in person or on video.

Okamoto Sensei received certification and mokuroku giving him full initiation into the art. So I would consider him fully qualified to speak on the subject. My only hesititation would be what he may or may not be leaving out!

Since he shared his thoughts only as we were ready/able to understand them it is unlikely that someone watching them out of the context of the actually training would understand the significance of what he was doing. Plus alot of what he trains isn't verbal but physical so if you can't 'feel' what he is saying you sure can't hear it.

That is true. I don't believe it is possible to learn DR aiki by watching. But that does not stop many DR instructors of different branches from being extremely secretive about showing their techniques anyway. Koryu *often* modify or alter techniques for demonstration. Someone who has felt the waza, or is from another branch of DR or some other tradition might very easily make use of such principles. To these people he is freely giving away principles that can be borrowed by others not under his authority (which he might not mind - I don't know).

I just don't have the personal need for your acceptance or acknowledgement so you are welcome to any view you wish.

I sure didn't mean to offend or downplay your experience or knowledge by my comment regarding menkyo kaiden. My perspective in this regard comes from the attitude displayed in many koryu, and even by Takeda Sokaku, Takeda Tokimune and other DR exponents. It may or may not apply to the Roppokai fully or at all. Your opinion holds more weight than those who do not or have not trained formally in DR when speaking about DR, and I respect it. I hope my explanation of the menkyo kaiden thing helps illuminate my point of view and cause for hesitation when accepting information about a historically conservative ryu-ha like Daito ryu.

Thanks for your contributions,



[Edited by Nathan Scott on 11-27-2000 at 02:56 PM]

[Nathan Scott]

Mark J.-san,

Thanks much for the very interesting post on No-Shi.

While I'm familiar with the Judo throws you mentioned, I'll have to put some more thought into the shape your describing (I took the Nelson's home over the weekend. Hey, I was relaxing!)

Your metaphor to the "?" was very appropriate!

:D

Regards,

(sorry for the long posts!)

[Paul Madory]

Just wanted to address the original subject a second here.

There is not only Ueshiba-ha and Takeda-ha aikibudo. There is also Aiki Inyo Ho traceable back to the shugenja mountain warrior ascetics. This is perhaps a geneological connection to ninjutsu.

In ninjutsu body movement, there is the saying, "Shizen gyoun ryusui". Translated (too) literally it means perhaps, "Natural moving clouds, flowing water". Transliterated, however (more meaningfully finding an equivalent idiomatic expression in the target language) it might be the equivalent aiki principle: "moving in harmony with force".

[Nathan Scott]

Hello Mr. Madory,

Just wanted to address the original subject a second here.

Are you crazy???

There is not only Ueshiba-ha and Takeda-ha aikibudo. There is also Aiki Inyo Ho traceable back to the shugenja mountain warrior ascetics.

This is perhaps a geneological connection to ninjutsu.

Aikibudo and Aiki inyo ho are different subjects, but...

I was wondering what your source was for tracing back the Aiki inyo ho of Daito ryu as transmitted by Saigo Tanamo to Shugenja?

With all due respect, I suspect that Daito ryu and Bujinkan have very little in common. Unless you have research that is unknown to the public, then I would have to say that looking for a connection is a pretty far stretch. No offense intended.

Regards,



[Edited by Nathan Scott on 11-27-2000 at 07:37 PM]

[Nathan Scott]

Hello Paul-san,

I was wondering what your source was for tracing back the Aiki inyo ho of Daito ryu as transmitted by Saigo Tanamo to Shugendo?

With all due respect, I suspect that Daito ryu and Bujinkan have very little in common. Unless you have research that is unknown to the public, then I would have to say that looking for a connection is a pretty far stretch. No offense intended.

Regards,

[Paul Madory]

No offense taken or intended, thanks.

I didn't say anything about Daito Ryu at all. Does Daito Ryu use that label in its curriculum as well - "Aiki Inyo Ho"? I am talking about Kaze Arashi Ryu Aiki Inyo Ho.

And I agree that there is little in common with Bujinkan. I was just making an observation about that little bit that they do have in common.