Likes Likes:  0
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 79

Thread: Daito-ryu

  1. #61
    Guest

    Default

    Guys,

    I really hate to get into this muck again but maybe for just one step.

    It's best to simplify the term "aiki" and stay away from the "my aiki is real and your isn't" silliness.

    As has been pointed out in the past, aiki as a tactic shows its greatest strengths in the weapon arts where the momentary gap created by it's application often resulted in a decisive or killing blow with the cut of a blade. In empty hand arts it's application although impressive is practically much less decisive. This is why the concept existed in the weapons arts long before it migrated into taijutsu focused arts.

    Simply defined......(I said simply) aiki is mental, psychological, and physiological disruption, so subtle that the victim is not aware of it's application until it's too late into the encounter to do anything about it. In a worst case scenario you are literally dead before you know what happened. Any attempt IMHO to more specifically define aiki is futile and only leads to illustrate the limitations of language in describing such a complex concept.

    Is there aiki in Aikido? Of course there is... depending on the instructor. Is there aiki in Daito ryu? Uhhhhhh.....yeah, depending on the instructor again! With some there is more than others. Yanagi ryu......oh yeah, seamlessly integrated with weapons I might add. And Shinkage ryu ... yeah. And Jikishinkage ryu and Kaishin ryu and..............yadda yadda yadda.

    So is there a "king of aiki" ? Nope. Some akikdo & daito ryu folks like to think because "aiki" is in the their arts name that this somehow gives them bragging rights or something.

    Well, I gotta tell you guys I have met several instructors out there whose art's names don't mention aiki at all and who can employ "aiki" so effectively that they stand right at the pinnacle of ability in this most elusive of martial concepts. These guys are second to none.

    Okay.....now I can just hear some bozo say "But thats not real aiki. What we do is different"

    Good, I hope you can use it to keep from getting your @#$@@%@ kicked in!

    Tobs

    (This is my only post on this subject)

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    444
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Toby Threadgill

    Well, I gotta tell you guys I have met several instructors out there whose art's names don't mention aiki at all and who can employ "aiki" so effectively that they stand right at the pinnacle of ability in this most elusive of martial concepts. These guys are second to none.

    Tobs
    In that vein, from what I understand Mifune's judo was very aiki. Many judoka may be equally as good, but none compare to his style.

    Peter
    Peter Claussen

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Orlando Florida U.S.
    Posts
    83
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Aikido should probably have been left out of a discussion on Aiki in this forum. Like it or not, accept it or not M. Ueshiba Sensei redefined Aiki as universal life energy, the creative principle of life. Throughout four decades or so of budo study (principally Aikido) I have found this to be an overall acceptable definition of what Aiki means to Aikido practitioners. At least the old timers. This is not the Aiki of war. Only within the last decade or so have older and perhaps more traditional definitions been brought fourth from Japan by westerners with any degree of consistency. I’m not sure my Japanese friends would understand the quandary we westerners place upon ourselves with this need to pigeonhole everything. In fact, I have spoken to a few that don’t understand what it is we are debating.

    So I think I will take my leave of this topic as well.
    Dennis Hooker
    www.shindai.com

  4. #64
    Kit LeBlanc Guest

    Default Both Practical and Wise...

    Toby-san,

    You are DA MAN!!!!

    Kit

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Colo Spgs, CO USA
    Posts
    377
    Likes (received)
    2

    Default

    I've been absent for a while, but here's my tangential take on this subject in two parts:

    Part One: Dennis,

    With all respect, I'd say that the aiki of aikido and the aiki of Daito-ryu are even more different than the difference between a house and a home. IMHO it might be more like comparing homes/houses to vehicles. I can't really say, "they're the same, but different", because they're different.

    I do agree with parts of your later post, namely that Ueshiba redefined aiki, and that his aiki was not the "aiki of war" (whatever that is), however, "universal life energy" and/or the "creative principle of life" are descriptions not of "aiki" but "ki". I think many people fail to make the distinction between ki/chi and aiki.

    I would say that Ueshiba's understanding of aiki was more literally what the term implies - and that is the "harmonization" of "ki". The problem for many people however is that he typically chose to explain his view(s) philosophically using mystical language and imagery derived from his personal worldview and spiritual practices.

    In layman's terms, I think we could safely boil down the essence of Ueshiba's definition (in a spiritual sense) to harmonizing one's personal ki with that of the universe. In a practical sense (at least in the common practice and interpretation of aikido), it's to blend and harmonize with your partner's ki or opponents attack. I'm not sure however, if the common practice and interpretation of aikido is really what Ueshiba had in mind, at least in his earlier years.

    Regardless of whether one adopts a practical (pre-war/old timers) interpreatation, or a more philosophical/spiritual (contemporary: peace, love & oatmeal) interpretation, the popular definitions of Ueshiba's aiki are still influenced, not only by Ueshiba's religious views, but also by his stated goals and aspirations for what his art would accomplish (personal character development & eventually world peace). I think that these interpretations and definitions all significantly differ from the aiki of Daito-ryu.

    Part Two (for Everyone):

    I agree with the bulk of Toby's post. So I'm not going to try and define what Daito-ryu aiki is again (been there done that many times before), and let me say before I go any farther that I'm not claiming that Daito-ryu or the particular branch that I study has a monopoly on the term or concept. However, I don't think that there is aiki in everything, or even in every art that uses the term.

    Classification of aiki is obviously difficult because definitions vary from tradition to tradition and from school to school, and from teacher to teacher and even student to student. The problem in aikido is that there are so many multiple traditions, schools, and teachers all teaching and promoting their own versions of aikido as authoritative, rather than seeking as students to discover and perfect what Ueshiba actually taught.

    Although this is also the case somewhat among the koryu, and in the Daito-ryu world as well, it is much less pronounced because the koryu are typically centered around one headmaster or senior instructor who has inherited the tradition and thus defines the art, and it's terms for the students. In the koryu, the tradition is generally transmitted by kata (prearranged forms usually designed to teach principles and/or basic skills/movements), which are taught by master to disciple directly, both allow for less misinterpretation.

    Whereas in aikido (and many other arts) students are frequently either self-taught, taught in large groups, taught by their peers, or by unqualified seniors and instructors who cannot properly demonstrate the art (authoritively or effectively), let alone teach or transmit it.

    Post-modern society's tendency towards pluralism and relativism has also fostered a culture that encourages personal interpretation hence individual creative expression is valued, and that's fine except that it also discourages any notion of objective truth, reality, or right from wrong.

    Most modern arts and some older ones are only technique or curriculum based arts and are more or less devoid of cohesive guiding principles, but Daito-ryu is a principle based art and so is/was Ueshiba's aikido. And they do share some principles. Aikido's techniques and most (not all) of it's principles are derived from Daito-ryu, but they have also been significantly modified, rearranged, and added to so as to fit Ueshiba's own personal understanding and purposes to the point where the two arts are in fact, quite distinct.

    People can spontaneously create and express themselves with either art however they like, but unless the principles are adhered to they won't be doing so correctly. We're not really free to just express or interpret the art in any fashion we please. If we violate those principles in anyway by inventing, reinventing, interpreting, redefining or even borrowing techniques, concepts and terms, then we're either doing something wrong (practicing and/or performing incorrectly) or we're doing something else altogether. Something else altogether is something different, regardless of what we chose to call it.

    If something violates (or simply doesn't use) the principles of aiki, then it's not really aiki, it's something else, and it's different. You can call it aiki, but that wouldn't be correct. "Words mean things" as Limbaugh would say. If you don't like or agree with that, then at least use logic - Something can not be "A" and "non A" at the same time. Sorry Toby, maybe I'm a bozo for saying it, but your logic fails me on that one (I liked and agreed with most of the rest of your post, particularly the bit about aiki as applied with weapons), but I have to insist that Daito-ryu aiki is different than aikido and other aikido derived "so called" aiki arts.

    Sokaku Takeda was first and foremost a swordsman, and he taught kenjutsu long before he popularized Daito-ryu Jujutsu and Aikijujutsu. Although he later emphasized the taijutsu aspects of Daito-ryu he never strayed from the principles of his sword and even insisted that Daito-ryu as a tradition included both taijutsu and kenjutsu (specifically Ono-ha Itto-ryu). His kenjutsu has in fact been described by all accounts as being highly unorthodox and unique to him, obviously influenced by Daito-ryu's rather unique application of aiki to kenjutsu. His aikijujutsu was certainly unique by all accounts, and his skill with empty hands was usually attributed to his skill with the sword.

    Aiki exists in Daito-ryu, it is in fact the core or basic foundation upon which the tradition (and it's reputation) was built. Sokaku Takeda revived and thus defined both the tradition and it's definition of aiki for us (some speculate he even invented or created it himself).

    The various headmasters of the tradition's main branches interpret the tradition's definition of aiki as they understand it, and likewise teach it's curriculum either as they learned it or reorganized it themselves. If an interpretation (or teaching) strays from the principles of the art however, they are either incorrect, or they are introducing something new, something previously not part of the tradition. A headmaster would certainly have this perogative, but if it significantly alters the tradition then it'd be more proper to rename it, in order to distinguish it somehow.

    If the principles are adhered to on the other hand, then regardless of the particular interpretation, application, or the form, it'll be correct. All the cummulative knowledge of the tradition will also be implicit in the transmission of the teaching even if it's not readily apparent. And a discerning student or teacher will eventually be able to discover and recognize all sorts of essential insights (okuden and hiden) that otherwise are not explicit. In the case of Daito-ryu Sokaku's techniques and secrets (along with those of his predecessors) are embedded in the techniques and principles he taught. Where those teachings are faithfully adhered to and transmitted, their insights are preserved for each generation to discover.

    If you don't know and understand the principles, then you won't be able to recognize or make distinctions between correct and incorrect, proper and improper teaching, or practice. Nor will you be able to recognize or fully appreciate the contribution and insights of masters from previous generations, and it'll be easy to misunderstand much regardless of what art or branch you study.

    I finish my two very long winded cents with the following quote, I'm sure I've posted it before, but it's one of my favorites:

    "True wisdom is not manifested in trying to see resemblences in things which differ, but in discerning the real differences among those which resemble one another."

    Brently Keen

  6. #66
    MPraskey Guest

    Default

    " Post-modern society's tendency towards pluralism and relativism has also fostered a culture that encourages personal interpretation hence individual creative expression is valued, and that's fine except that it also discourages any notion of objective truth, reality, or right from wrong. "

    That's one way to look at it. That's the argument a Platonic thinker would make and draws upon ideas of "intangible essences. " Many
    "modern " western thinkers reject this idea completely on the basis that they belive that an indvidual's experences color reality and hence
    objectivity is really a falacy. I don't necessarily subscribe to either school of thought, except to say don't go down that path unless you really want a headache, that's a whole seperate and widely debated argument.


    Classifying Aiki is only difficult in my opinion if you try to define it as a group of indivdiual techniques rather then a broader principle and strategy to deal with violence. I've seen a lot of opinions for and against either idea. I haven't seen a lot of evidence presented beyond personal experence. I've tried to avoid that myself by refering to the words of Tokimune Takeda and how I understand his definition of the concept. It seems to me that he has said, expelicetly, that Aiki is not unique to Daito-ryu and has cited examples that seem to indicate to me that he is treating it as a broad strategy rather then a category of specific technqiues. Obviously I have a serious difference of opinion with the other people on this board. Considering the differences in the teachings of the students who studied him, I don't find that surprising. That's all I really can say on the matter and with that I take my leave of this thread.

    I'll wrap it up by following Musashi's example of not quoting the ancients.


    Mike Praskey.

  7. #67
    Finny Guest

    Default Daito-ryu

    Hi all, I was thinking of posting this in the Daito-Ryu forum, but I figured it's probably more relevant here (but feel free to move it moderator )

    I dont know too much about the history of Daito-Ryu, but there seems to be some debate as to whether it is a truly ancient system (the edo period palace defence system theory), or whether it is somewhat more modern. However, everyone seems to at least accept it as a sort of quasi-koryu system.

    I was wondering, Do you think that the fact it is seen as a predecessor to Aikido has influenced this debate at all (ie. people may be influenced by the fact it was a forerunner to Aikido, therefore being more inclined to see it as a koryu)

    I hope I dont offend anyone here, as I said, I dont know all that much about DR history (maybe someone can fill me in?) and it was just something I thought of.

    Thanks,
    Brendan Finn

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    1,329
    Likes (received)
    0

    Smile Takeda Sokkaku..

    Hello Brendan,
    I was under the idea that the 'ambiguity' in the Daito Ryu claims stemmed from the lack of 'solid' evidence of the art being taught before the time of Takeda Sokkaku..From his lineage through to the Takeda-Genji family of the Kai area.
    The art was originally named 'Oshikiuchi' which has been interpreted as a few possible things..One being 'Inside the Palace' and was originally used by the Imperial Guards of the Emperor for defense while on 'bodyguard' duty...There is however an incredible amount of discussion (Here also) on whether the arts can be traced back as far as they are claimed to reach..(Other posters here will no doubt add substantially to my own words here..).
    The arguments against seem to stem from the belief that the art was 'formed' by Takeda Sokkaku and that the origin of the 'Oshikiuchi' that he was taught was vague and unproven..They use the fact that the term means a few differing ideas and that i is far from 'set down' as in the cse of KEN-jutsu...(Sword techniques.).
    A good place to get the basics on the Ryu is at their website at www.daito-ryu.org/history.html
    This is the official website and documents the path of the school now taught by Kondo Katsuyuki-San.
    The school has a few branches in Japan but the above site is the main one and a good starting point..
    A hornets nest this one..Always has been. (You thought the Bujinkan wars were rough... ... )
    Abayo..
    Ben Sharples.
    智は知恵、仁は思いやり、勇は勇気と説いています。

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    280
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Brendan,

    It seems to me the reason DR is often seen as a "quasi-koryu" as you put it, has more to do with the 1) stated history, and 2) the way DR is taught.

    Without getting into the details of the history, let's just say that the traditional line has the art going back to around the 12th century, with it being transmitted through the Aizu clan until Sokaku Takeda began teaching it openly at the end of the 19th century and into the 20th.

    Of course, as many have pointed out, there are currently no records available to verify or contradict this lineage/time-line. What is for certain is that Sokaku Takeda placed a very strong stamp on the art, so that even if it was determined that the art extended back that far into history, modern DR might well be very different than DR taught hundreds of years ago. Furthermore, Sokaku Takeda never formalized the techniques, and never opened a "school." He just travelled around teaching people who paid well for the instruction. It was left to his son, Tokimune, to formalize the curriculum and open a DR school - which he called, DR Aikibudo.

    As for the the way DR is taught, one cannot help but notice the distinct "classical" method of instruction. The art is very, very formal, and taught almost exclusively in two-man kata forms. Many of the techniques in the first level of instruction (the Hiden Mokuroku), furthermore, contain similarities with other koryu jujutsu techniques. Almost the only "modern" element in DR is the kyu/dan ranking system. Although, as stated on the DR website:

    "It should be remarked that this modern ranking system has nothing to do with the system of licensing traditionally used in Daito-ryu and in other classical and semi-classical traditions. It has been adopted simply for the sake of convenience and organization, as well as to provide modern people with identifiable goals to mark and motivate their progress." See FAQ at www.daito-ryu.org

    So, whether DR is a "true" koryu is, at this time, unverifiable. Nevertheless, the very classical nature of the art itself, as well as its stated lineage, is enough to describe it as a "classical" MA. DR is also a member of the Nihon Kobudo Shinkokai and the Nihon Kobudo Kyokai.

    Sincerely,
    Arman Partamian
    Daito-ryu Study Group
    Maryland

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    266
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Daito ryu inspirations

    It seems that Daito ryu has an immense curriculum that would be difficult for one person to develop on their own. Considering the subtle aiki no jutsu that the Kodokai teaches and the extensive jujutsu contained in the hiden mokuroku, it seems likely (though not definite) that it sprang from earlier inspirations. If Takeda did invent the entire art on his own, then he is the greatest of bugeisha. It seems that it would take several lifetimes to develop something that huge. If one looks at other ryu with curriculum that vast, notice that it took several generations to develop that completely. I am hoping that the jujutsu history of Takeda will one day be discovered for surely the material for both the hiden mokuroku and the amazing aiki no jutsu techniques had to have some very deep roots.

    Just a few of my thoughts. Thank you.
    Erin O'Neill

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    64
    Likes (received)
    0

    Smile Daito-ryu

    Please read Aikijujutsu forum. I would appreciate the viewpoints. Thanks everyone.
    Tracy Crocker
    Tracy Crocker

  12. #72
    MarkF Guest

    Default

    Is it important? What if it is gendai? Or koryu, would it really make a difference?

    As to when it began to be called DR AJJ, it very well could be gendai. The history is scant beyond Takeda Sokaku. Gendai or koryu?

    The son, Tokimune, began using the dan-i grading system out of need. Many students and the scrolls took too much time (I'm not sure if this is really true, but he did say something like that). So does that make it gendai? I know of off-shoots of one of lines of DR that doesn't call itself that, but still do some or most of the technique with modern application to it. Most of what they use is from one of the old schools, but is applied to the modern way due to a change, a big one. since then.

    Personally, I don't think it matters, and it really isn't something people should spend a lot of time discussing, or at least worrying a lot. People considered very knowledgable in the Koryu/gendai separation go from one extreme to another. One says any thing from 1868 is gendai, before, it is koryu. Others are much more forgiving and mention decades, kind of like sliding from one to the other on a continuum of sorts, instead of a year in when this happened, if at all.


    Mark

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Lindenhurst, Illinois
    Posts
    1,114
    Likes (received)
    0

    Lightbulb

    Dear Mark:

    Despite the differences in our traditions I am completely in agreement with your comment. In the KMA we have accepted the use of the dan/guep ranking system and I have seen it do no good for any of the arts. If anything, it has corrupted and cheapened the motives by which people encourage themselves to study. Even if DRAJJ were a gendai art I know of no reason to use the dan ranking system. Were an organization to grow to such a size that people were not able to be overseen by the soke or shihan of the ryu, I think it would only mean that some arrangements would need to be made to accellerate the expansion of the teaching cadre to accomplish this. I, too, believe that it matters little if one can actually prove the heritage of DRAJJ one way or another, anymore than proving the heritage of Hapkido which I practice. What counts for me is the integrity of the system. Thoughts?

    Best Wishes,

    Bruce
    Bruce W Sims
    www.midwesthapkido.com

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    64
    Likes (received)
    0

    Smile Daito Ryu (Koryu or Not?)

    Hi everyone. I agree with what you are saying on many levels. I think you should be happy with what you are doing no matter what others think, I reckon I was looking more from a historical point of view. I thought it was weird that there are some (very few) that are practicing the full curriculum. I also thought it was weird when I read Serge Mol's book and it stated that Daito Ryu doesn't look too different than any other traditional Jujutsu/Koryu. I mainly wanted opinions on that. It is easy to say, do what makes you happy, but I was looking something somewhat deeper in thought than that, but I agree. Thanks.
    Tracy Crocker
    Tracy Crocker

  15. #75
    Sam Robinson Guest

    Default

    Mr Crocker,

    Exactly what do you mean by this statement?

    "I thought it was weird that there are some (very few) that are practicing the full curriculum."

    Exactly what constitutes the full curriculum is kinda hazy despite the above satisfactory documentation kept within this school. Tokimune, Sagawa and the Takumakai all had\have slightly different slants on this subject. Takeda evidently changed the curriculum frequently during his life.

    If you are alluding to the claim by some Daito ryu groups that Daito ryu is itself a sogo bujutsu I suggest you do further research. Daito ryu is primarily a taijutsu system which does not include a significant weapons curriculum.

    One rather dubious Daito ryu "master" goes around proclaiming his deep knowledge in the secret art of Daito ryu Naginata? This is just a rather transparent ploy to claim expertise in something that no one else has access to. The problem is that research confirms that it never existed in the first place.

    Reminds me of the rather common phenomonon of secret ninja teachers living and teaching in the back of washateria's and passing on 1000 year old secret shinobijutsu to 16 year old's.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •