Aikido & Daito-ryu: Differences and Similarities?/ Rengokai

[don]

...just how much Daito-ryu Jujutsu (and Aikijujutsu) is actually incorporated into Aikido.

"Incorporated into"...I think "derived from."

Indeed, except for the politics and bad blood here and there, some of us think of aikido as a branch of DR. Contrary to cliche, you've got "hard" aikido, and you've got "soft" DR. The overlap is significant.

(Btw, Garrido Sensei, many congratulations on a successful seminar with Kondo Sensei.)

[Ames]

Indeed, except for the politics and bad blood here and there, some of us think of aikido as a branch of DR

I couldn't agree more. And I also think this is EXACTLY the conclusion that the aikido 'powers that be' were trying to cover up.

[Cady Goldfield]

I've observed that a lot of aikidoka don't want to acknowledge their art's Daito-ryu roots. They treat it as though it were a Neanderthal grandparent they wish wasn't in their family tree.

[glad2bhere]

Thats OK. I get much the same feeling as a Hapkido practiioner and the fact is that we still don't have an absolutely assured idea of where we fit into Japanese traditions--- if at all.

Sorta like being the red-haired step-kid at the family reunion, if you know what I mean.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[SoldierNurse]

Thats OK. I get much the same feeling as a Hapkido practiioner and the fact is that we still don't have an absolutely assured idea of where we fit into Japanese traditions--- if at all.

Sorta like being the red-haired step-kid at the family reunion, if you know what I mean.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

It is my understanding Hapkido & Aikido both share a common heritage with Daito-ryu Aikijutsu. Both Morihei Uyeshiba, the founder of Aikido, and Yong Shui Choi, founder of Hapkido, studied Daito-ryu Aikijutsu in Japan under Sokaku Takeda. However, differences in philosophy exists between Hapikido & Aikido regards to one leans towards offensive and the other defensive focus.

I wonder why some aikidoka prefer to disassociate with Daito-ryu aikijutsu. I realize some approach aikido as a means of spiritual enlightenment through the development of "Ki". IMHO, timing, skill, and to a degree strength are just as important as ki. I prefer to focus in on the combat aspect of Aikido, which is more to it's roots. A stream of aikido still exist which maintains the art in its combat effective form, Daito-ryu Aikijutsu.

[glad2bhere]

Hi, Cary:

Yes, the conventional wisdom--- read also, the "company line"---- is that CHOI Yong Sul studied and mastered DRAJJ. To date there is no firm evidence that I have uncovered to substantiate this. Comments by JANG Im Mok, Ueyshiba's son and Richard Kim do apparently support Choi participating in training related to DRAJJ or with folks who were likewise training in this manner. In this way, Choi would come into a larger constellation of folks who inter-related with each other in the first half of the 20th Century. Individuals associated with this more "eclectic model" include TOYAMA Kanken, YOSHIDA Kotaro and FUNAKOSHI Gichin. Having said this I feel that I would be unfair if I did not take one more step, favoring my personal opinion, and add STRONGLY that this IS only my opinion.

In much the same way that the militant influence on the Japan of the early 20th century was focused through the lower and middle military officer ranks, I am of the opinion that it may well have been students of such personages as I have mentioned who could have championed the eclectic "mixing-and-matching" utilitarian, rather than art-form, approach. In a fantasy I can imagine an individual such as Funakoshi having knowledge that "the kids" were "experimenting" with their materials. In this way, in a post WW II world, we would see such hybred arts as Oyama's KYOKUSHIN Karate, and So's SHORINJI Kempo. To my mind, it would be a process such as this and not direct lineage to DRAJJ that would have produced Choi's "yawara".

I have no intention to offend, and once again state that this is only the musings of KMA researcher based solely on my digging. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Jose Garrido]

Don, thanks. The seminar was great and I hope to see you at the next one.

I agree, to some degree aikido is a branch of the DTR with its main difference being the incorporation of the Omoto-kyo influences. After all Ueshiba sensei did receive the highest certification that was being awarded in DTR at the time.

Jose Garrido

[Katsujinken]

Abundant Peace: The Biography of Morehei Ueshiba by Profesor John Stevens may be the source of what is stated in the earlier post, as that book seems to indicate that Daito Ryu had little influence on Aikido and that the relationship between Sokaku Takeda and Morehei Ueshiba was not a particularly harmonious one and points to other arts including Gotto Yagyu Ryu Ju Jutsu, the Jo from Kuki Shin Ryu. However this is of course all open to interpretation but it does suggest that Daito Ryu has less influence on Aikido than is often supposed. Personally I am not convinced given the similarity between Aikido and Daito Ryu.

Regards

[Cady Goldfield]

John Stevens was, in fact, wrong. Since he wrote that, it has been documented and shown clearly that Ueshiba M. had a very extensive and close relationship with Takeda S.

The work of Stanley Pranin, which includes first-hand interviews with key people (Pranin is fluent in Japanese spoken and written language) proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt. Pranin had access Stevens could only dream of.

Another thing: Just because Takeda and Ueshiba had a very close relationship, doesn't mean it was a good one. One of the most famous aspects of the history between the two men, is the falling-out that ensued many years down the road. Also, just because Ueshiba trained with Takeda, doesn't mean that he kept things just as he had learned them. Remember that Ueshiba went through his own spiritual and emotional epiphany, and made major changes to the very martial art he had been taught by Takeda. Looking at the two arts now, you would definitely not see much in common. And yet, aikido is very much the "child" of Daito-ryu.

(No, Bruce, not the red-haired one. )

[SoldierNurse]

Hi, Cary:

Yes, the conventional wisdom--- read also, the "company line"---- is that CHOI Yong Sul studied and mastered DRAJJ. To date there is no firm evidence that I have uncovered to substantiate this. Comments by JANG Im Mok, Ueyshiba's son and Richard Kim do apparently support Choi participating in training related to DRAJJ or with folks who were likewise training in this manner. In this way, Choi would come into a larger constellation of folks who inter-related with each other in the first half of the 20th Century. Individuals associated with this more "eclectic model" include TOYAMA Kanken, YOSHIDA Kotaro and FUNAKOSHI Gichin. Having said this I feel that I would be unfair if I did not take one more step, favoring my personal opinion, and add STRONGLY that this IS only my opinion.

In much the same way that the militant influence on the Japan of the early 20th century was focused through the lower and middle military officer ranks, I am of the opinion that it may well have been students of such personages as I have mentioned who could have championed the eclectic "mixing-and-matching" utilitarian, rather than art-form, approach. In a fantasy I can imagine an individual such as Funakoshi having knowledge that "the kids" were "experimenting" with their materials. In this way, in a post WW II world, we would see such hybred arts as Oyama's KYOKUSHIN Karate, and So's SHORINJI Kempo. To my mind, it would be a process such as this and not direct lineage to DRAJJ that would have produced Choi's "yawara".

I have no intention to offend, and once again state that this is only the musings of KMA researcher based solely on my digging. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Hello Bruce,

Not offended at all. Your thoughts,as well as others, on this Thread have been a good read.

[Ron Tisdale]

John Stevens was, in fact, wrong. Since he wrote that, it has been documented and shown clearly that Ueshiba M. had a very extensive and close relationship with Takeda S.

The work of Stanley Pranin, which includes first-hand interviews with key people (Pranin is fluent in Japanese spoken and written language) proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt. Pranin had access Stevens could only dream of.

Hi Cady,

While I agree that Stan's work is clearly more accurate, and the source of the material is impeccable, compared to the lack of footnotes or sources in Steven's books, this does not mean that Stevens did not have access to many interesting sources in the aikido world. The fact is that the Aikikai had a line to peddle...and they used someone to do it. I find the hyperbole used regretable...but it is what it is. This does not take away from the fact that Stevens is also fluent in Japanese, and has taught at a university in Sendai for many years now. I wish some of that scholarship had gone into his books...but he chose a different emphasis. I just wouldn't want someone to get the wrong impression from your post, though I agree with the main thrust of it.

Looking at the two arts now, you would definitely not see much in common. And yet, aikido is very much the "child" of Daito-ryu.

(No, Bruce, not the red-haired one. )

Well, there are styles of aikido where there art is extremely close to what you see in some Daito ryu organizations today. The Yoshinkan, for example, has many similarities to what you see in the main line tradition. And there are some similarities between some "soft" (ick, hate that word) styles of aikido and the corresponding "soft" (ick again) styles of Daito ryu. As to how far those similarities go...that's not for me to say. Neither Aikido nor Daito ryu are monoliths...individual styles, teachers, and dojo vary greatly.

Best,
Ron

[Mark Murray]

Well, there are styles of aikido where there art is extremely close to what you see in some Daito ryu organizations today. The Yoshinkan, for example, has many similarities to what you see in the main line tradition. And there are some similarities between some "soft" (ick, hate that word) styles of aikido and the corresponding "soft" (ick again) styles of Daito ryu. As to how far those similarities go...that's not for me to say. Neither Aikido nor Daito ryu are monoliths...individual styles, teachers, and dojo vary greatly.

Best,
Ron

Ugh, but that's a stark truth. In both cases, Aikido and Daito ryu, there was one person of extreme skill that held it all together. When that person died, things fell apart and their arts fractured. With that splintering, different "histories" were created. It's that kind of mess that those of us great great grandchildren must sort through. And what a mess it is, especially since all the children are gone, too, and can't help sort it out. Third and fourth hand knowledge sucks for accuracy.

Mark

[Cady Goldfield]

Mark,
Duly noted. I didn't mean to imply that Stevens' research (or language skills) were somehow defective, but only that Pranin was able to get deeper into the subject via communications with "players" that Stevens hadn't been privy to. It's just a matter of extending the research further.

As for Yoshinkan, it's also known that Shioda trained for a time with Takeda, so it's no surprise that some of that shows in his aikido. However, as Ueshiba took his work in a certain direction away from Daito-ryu, so went Shioda in his own direction.

[Ron Tisdale]

Hi Cady,

That's the problem, in my opinion (putting the hyperbole aside). Because there are no footnotes or sources listed, it's impossilbe to go back over the work and make an educated judgement for yourself. I get the feeling that Stevens Sensei was interested in capturing the mythos of aikido and it's founder. That he has done, and exceptionally well. I am also very enamored of his book on Shirata Sensei, and the one on Tesshu as well. But I don't read those books as history...though the book on Teshhu would have been even better (in my opinion) with footnotes, sources, bibliography etc.

But we also have to look at the historical side...and for that, I'm afraid Stan's work is second to none.

Best,
Ron

[Cady Goldfield]

Ron,

I agree that it was the mythos that Stevens focused on, and that he succeeded with that, and that Pranin is more the academic focused on historical accuracy. The two clearly had different aims in their work.

Pranin's work truly is second to none in its quest for historic "completeness" and accuracy. That's why individuals who really want to understand the origins from a historical-survey approach, Pranin is the best choice, in my opinion. For those who want mainly to understand the "spirit" of Ueshiba and aikido, then Stevens is likely the best source.