Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34

Thread: The Evolution of Aikido

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Hiroshima, Japan.
    Posts
    2,550
    Likes (received)
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ellis Amdur
    On another matter, prewar, according to two informed, disparate sources that I've spoken to over the last couple of days, Ueshiba taught that aikido was done by GRABBING the other person and doing things to them. This was changed, after the war to tori being grabbed - and NOT by Ueshiba himself.
    There is just a hint of this in the Budo Renshu volume (1933) and the Budo volume (Showa 13 = 1938).

    The photo that Ellis refers to is on p.51 of The Secret Teachings of Aikido, translated by John Stevens. The demonstration was at the Japan Industrial Club in 1934.

    Allen,
    Ellis is in Japan at the moment and we talked by telephone a few hours ago. He is coming down to stay with me for a few days here in Hiroshima. We will probably be discussing 'issues' for at least 36 hours each day.
    Last edited by Nathan Scott; 17th January 2010 at 19:53.
    Peter Goldsbury,
    Forum Administrator,
    Hiroshima, Japan

  2. #2
    Mark Murray Guest

    Default The Evolution of Aikido

    Quote Originally Posted by P Goldsbury View Post
    Hello Mark,
    There is just a hint of this in the Budo Renshu volume (1933) and the Budo volume (Showa 13 = 1938).

    The photo that Ellis refers to is on p.51 of The Secret Teachings of Aikido, translated by John Stevens. The demonstration was at the Japan Industrial Club in 1934.

    Allen,
    Ellis is in Japan at the moment and we talked by telephone a few hours ago. He is coming down to stay with me for a few days here in Hiroshima. We will probably be discussing 'issues' for at least 36 hours each day.
    Thank you for the added info.

    It sort of brings me to some questions regarding the father and the son Ueshiba. How much did the son actually follow his father?

    My guess is that it seems if Kisshomaru Ueshiba had wanted to do something differently after the war, that he wouldn't have to try very hard. First, his father wasn't always there. Second, at some point, Kisshomaru Ueshiba would have had quite a few loyal adherents to his cause, and with the promise of leadership and rank, the only thing in the way might have been Tohei. I'm just musing here and could be way off base. So, the son changes things more to his liking (I'm not judging good or bad here, just that things changed), gathers those that would follow (after all, those that wouldn't have already split off and gone their own way), and starts making his vision world wide.

    And being that, in Japan, aikido was a generic term for quite a bit, just calling it aikido was still good. No need for a name change at all. And no need to give away secrets because the vision turned towards a more spiritual harmony outlook. (Again, not judging right or wrong here, just saying that mass appeal requires that some things are sacrificed. It just is that way.)

    If I'm wrong in my guesses, I hope you'll correct me.

    But, I seriously doubt many in the U.S. have much of a clue to a lot of Ueshiba's history (both father and son), aikido history, or Daito ryu history. I know I don't. But it's interesting to see that there was two main branches of aikido: Morihei Ueshiba doing a derivative of Daito ryu and Kisshomaru Ueshiba doing a derivative of his father's art.

    Thank you,
    Mark

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    285
    Likes (received)
    33

    Default Gendai aikibujutsu - Nihon Jujutsu

    Quote Originally Posted by P Goldsbury View Post
    Hello Mark,
    There is just a hint of this in the Budo Renshu volume (1933) and the Budo volume (Showa 13 = 1938).
    。。。。。。。。。
    Allen,
    Ellis is in Japan at the moment and we talked by telephone a few hours ago. He is coming down to stay with me for a few days here in Hiroshima. We will probably be discussing 'issues' for at least 36 hours each day.
    I'll see Ellis next week, and will show him more than a hint. I'll spell it out to him.

    Seizing your opponent is explicit in the aikibujutsu lesson plan produced by Tomiki Kenji sensei in 1937 for his instruction of the Kanto-gun (i.e., Imperial Army Group Manchuria) Kempeitai, or Military Police; since the lesson plan is marked Kobukan 講武館 (and 'Secret - Do Not Disseminate' by the Japanese military) presumably it was consistent if not identical with what Ueshiba sensei was teaching the Japanese military in Japan. This lesson plan was later made into an official Japanese Army hand to hand combat manual; I have both. And it is certainly 'offensive'.

    Tomiki, already an advanced judoka, began studying directly under Ueshiba around 1926, and AFAIK was awarded the traditional menkyo kaiden in aikibujtsu by Ueshiba in 1937. After Ueshiba changed his art’s name to aikidō and adopted the dan grade system, he awarded Tomiki the world’s first aikidō 8th dan in 1940, possibly during Ueshiba's visit to Manchuria (then known as ‘Manchukuo’).

    Tomiki and Ueshiba were certainly in contact throughout this period; Tomiki regularly traveled to Japan, and Ueshiba went to Manchuria at least in 1940, the same year he promoted Tomiki to the world's first aikidō 8dan. And from the mid-1930's until aikibujutsu instruction was dropped in favor of a truncated karate curriculum in 1940-something (I don't have my notes handy), while Tomiki taught the Military Police in Manchuria (in addition to a couple of colleges and Lord knows where else), Ueshiba taught aikibujutsu, and presumably with the same curriculum, at least at:
    Army Nakano Intelligence School
    Army Toyama Officer Training School
    Navy Etajima Officer College

    I've always thought that this heavy involvement by Ueshiba in training the Japanese Imperial military, along with Tomiki's internment, played a role in Ueshiba's postwar rustification, but haven't found any documentation so far.

    I'm working on a brief history of how all this together, will get around to finishing it someday, but most definitely these techniques are still being practiced, flourishing but hiding in plain sight, and more accessible than in Daito ryu aikijujutsu.

    Where?

    When Tomiki was finally released from the Soviet Siberian prison camp 1948 (18 months after seized after the end of the war), upon his return to Japan he became a part-time 'secretary' at the Kodokan, where he met the young Sato Shizuya, then a member of the International Division. There they practiced aikibujutsu one-on-one for 3 years, then later together taught a related ‘aikidō ’, but actually a form of that same aikibujutsu to USAF servicemen at the Kodokan 1952-1956.

    Sato sensei later used these aikibujutsu techniques to form the basis of Nihon Jujutsu (sometimes called Sato-ryu Nihon Jujutsu, sometimes known in Japan as Nihon-den Jujutsu); one certainly grabs their opponent in the precursor aikibujutsu art, and in the gendai Nihon Jujutsu as well (which I practice).

    To the point of the discussion, in fact the 'grabs' are one of the more difficult points to master, along w/ the kuzushi movements, which I guess in this earlier context some would call 'aiki', but we simply call 'kuzushi'.

    Sato sensei's American Embassy Judo Club is the head dojo of Nihon Jujutsu worldwide - we celebrated the dojo’s 50th anniversary last year. There are also some qualified Nihon Jujutsu instructors outside Japan, namely in the US, a couple of places in Europe, and Australia. (Sato sensei, who is the Director, IMAF, only issues dan and instructor qualifications under the auspices of the International Martial Arts Federation, IMAF. See www.imaf.com)

    The best qualified Nihon Jujutsu instructor in North America is Nick Suino sensei at the Japan Martial Arts Center in Ann Arbor, MI; see http://www.japanesemartialartscenter.com/jujutsu.php

    So, if you want to see prewar aikibujutsu and its seizing and aiki techniques, check out Nihon Jujutsu.

    Cheers,
    Lance Gatling ガトリング
    Tokyo 東京

    Long as we're making up titles, call me 'The Duke of Earl'

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Atlanta - USA
    Posts
    712
    Likes (received)
    6

    Default The Evolution of Aikido

    I'm a little puzzled that the idea of seizing is a new one. It immediately brought the interview with Tokimune to mind:
    Q: Are there many techniques in which one attacks first in Daito-ryu?
    T: Yes, of course. For example, the police learned jujutsu as arrest techniques, so it must be active. They attack first; it is not self-defense... Go no sen does not work when a policeman arrests a criminal. He must attack to catch a fleeing criminal, and then must tie him up with a rope or handcuff him. The policeman must initiate the attack because he cannot ask the criminal to grab him first. He must start with an attack, and control the opponent with kiai.
    Aiki applies to self-defense when an opponent attacks first, and we use the term to refer to self-defense for people in general. These two must not be confused. Thus, the police do not use the word aiki. They use jujutsu. They fight with kiai, using a sen sen attack. Attacking is kiai. Aiki, on the other hand, is go no sen. Policemen are permitted to attack first. This is why police studied Daito-ryu...
    p. 55 DRAJJ: Converstions with Daito-ryu Masters, Pranin 1996
    Doug Walker
    Completely cut off both heads,
    Let a single sword stand against the cold sky!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    685
    Likes (received)
    111

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Hiroshima, Japan.
    Posts
    2,550
    Likes (received)
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Gatling View Post
    I'll see Ellis next week, and will show him more than a hint. I'll spell it out to him.

    Seizing your opponent is explicit in the aikibujutsu lesson plan produced by Tomiki Kenji sensei in 1937 for his instruction of the Kanto-gun (i.e., Imperial Army Group Manchuria) Kempeitai, or Military Police; since the lesson plan is marked Kobukan 講武館 (and 'Secret - Do Not Disseminate' by the Japanese military) presumably it was consistent if not identical with what Ueshiba sensei was teaching the Japanese military in Japan. This lesson plan was later made into an official Japanese Army hand to hand combat manual; I have both. And it is certainly 'offensive'.

    Cheers,
    I am curious. In Ueshiba's books it is 皇武館. Did Tomiki change it?
    Peter Goldsbury,
    Forum Administrator,
    Hiroshima, Japan

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    285
    Likes (received)
    33

    Default Ooops...

    Quote Originally Posted by P Goldsbury View Post
    I am curious. In Ueshiba's books it is 皇武館. Did Tomiki change it?
    No, I'm sure you're right, that plus there's no edit function on this forum, and I have judo on the brain. ....講道館 講武所 etc. My mistake, the correct kanji IIRC reads 皇武館 as you ask. (I just moved and will have to dig out the original for Ellis, there's a mountain of book boxes in my office.)

    And Ellis' post above is of course correct - Nihon Jujutsu is a cousin to Yoshinkan aikido, and its grasping techniques are very similar. Now, if I could only move half as well as Chida or Takeno sensei..... But I've heard lately that the Yoshinkan has sort of imploded, but don't know for a fact.

    Regarding the use of jujutsu by the police as arresting techniques, there is a serialization of a very old Japanese police judo kata on the Judo Forum at http://judoforum.com/index.php?showt...8&#entry371398
    It clearly shows the seizing required to take the initiative. Yamashita was a jujutsuka before (and during??) his judo career. In fact, seizing your opponent is sort of a judo specialty, although there are very advanced techniques that don't require you to grasp someone. Just don't ask me to demo them.

    See you,
    Lance Gatling ガトリング
    Tokyo 東京

    Long as we're making up titles, call me 'The Duke of Earl'

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    56
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    I'm definitely sticking my neck out on this one, so if you want to lop it off . . . well, it's a slow pitch . . . I'm thinking that Takeda Tokimune is about as reputed for demonstrating remarkable Aiki Power, Kokyu Ryoku, what have you as Ueshiba Kisshomaru was, so I pay attention to what he says, but take it with a grain of salt.

    So as far as seizing goes, I was taught as Ellis said, "Ueshiba taught that aikido was done by GRABBING the other person and doing things to them. This was changed, after the war to tori being grabbed."

    Now, the logical question a foreigner would ask was, "How did one do that sensei?" and the Japanese answer, "Just as we do in practice."

    My understanding: Jujutsu follows jujutsu principles, aiki follows its own, or they can be combined. The seizing following jujutsu principles operates very much as Ellis posted. (Although I would add that the initial atemi should be the show stopper. The assumptions I was taught was: Multiple armed opponents with lethal intent. So if one's opening atemi isn't effective (conclusive), one is already in deep do-do.) The seizing following aiki principles was sensei grabbing you and putting your a** where he wanted it (as I recall).

    So, one strike one kill, as spoken of by Ueshiba Morihei (when asked to create rules for the dojo), Aiki seizing is Aiki seizing (there is not opponent in Aiki), jujutsu remains jujutsu.

    I aspire to them all . . . and the message . . . and fail regularly.

    [OK, back to my wine and wife .]
    Allen Beebe

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    56
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    So I’m sitting around drinking coffee and thinking about jujutsu, and aiki, and teaching, and secrets, and fathers and sons . . .

    My present understanding is that (insert name here) ~jutsu is concerned about sen and other tactical considerations, aiki isn’t concerned about sen or other tactical considerations because aiki is a state of being not becoming (which can been seen as a tactical consideration in and of itself), hence the applicability of Ueshiba’s enigmatic use of the phrase “katsu haya bi,” and statements such as “there are no kata in Aikido.” The state of aiki can of course be applied to one’s manifestation of (insert name here) ~jutsu. [One confusing factor when discussing aiki is that some folks use it as a verb and others as a noun, and some use it both ways. Obviously I’m thinking of it as a noun here.]

    Various forms of (insert name here) ~jutsu were ubiquitous in Japan and so if one were to be notable among the multitude one would either have to have connections or make a name for oneself by being individually unique among the various forms of (insert name here) ~jutsu. Clearly both Takeda Sr. and Ueshiba Sr. did both.

    Now, when it came to teaching (insert name here) to (insert name here) it seems that they taught (insert name here) ~jutsu, rather than what it was that made them individually unique. This may be due simply to the pragmatic nature of teaching groups of individuals for pragmatic purposes like military and/or police. Or, it may be due to the “steal it if you can” methodology of teaching. Or, it may be due people’s inability to see “the forest for the trees.” Or, it may have been due to a purposeful obfuscation for moral , tactical, or business (Why teach them to fish when I make a living as a fish seller?) reasons. Or maybe they are Beethoven and Mozart among a sea of nameless composers.

    I scratch my head though when I ponder the question: Wouldn’t a father allow his son to inherit the totality of the family business? I’m guessing the answer would be in the affirmative, unless the son was seen as an inappropriate candidate for the transmission for any number of reasons, or if the father just didn’t give a care.

    Still one might not see the full result of this transmission manifested if a) the son had a limited capacity/talent to learn (not everyone is a Beethoven or a Mozart), or b) the son purposefully chose not to display that transmission. ‘B’ seems rather unlikely to me though because a public manifestation was already set as a precedent by the father and proved to be both quite useful for marketing and quite difficult to “steal.”

    Anyway, as you can see I’m not offering any answers here, just thinking out loud.

    Perhaps I'll practice "chopsticks" some more on the piano today!
    Allen Beebe

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Hiroshima, Japan.
    Posts
    2,550
    Likes (received)
    151

    Default

    Hello Allen,

    Some thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by henjoyuko View Post
    So I’m sitting around drinking coffee and thinking about jujutsu, and aiki, and teaching, and secrets, and fathers and sons . . .

    My present understanding is that (insert name here) ~jutsu is concerned about sen and other tactical considerations, aiki isn’t concerned about sen or other tactical considerations because aiki is a state of being not becoming (which can been seen as a tactical consideration in and of itself), hence the applicability of Ueshiba’s enigmatic use of the phrase “katsu haya bi,” and statements such as “there are no kata in Aikido.”
    PAG. Are you sure that this is what he meant? You have put it in terms of ‘western’ existential concepts. Are you sure that this captures “katsu haya bi”? He actually taught ‘waza’, which seem to me to have beginnings, middles and also ends.

    Quote Originally Posted by henjoyuko View Post
    Now, when it came to teaching (insert name here) to (insert name here) it seems that they taught (insert name here) ~jutsu, rather than what it was that made them individually unique. This may be due simply to the pragmatic nature of teaching groups of individuals for pragmatic purposes like military and/or police. Or, it may be due to the “steal it if you can” methodology of teaching. Or, it may be due people’s inability to see “the forest for the trees.” Or, it may have been due to a purposeful obfuscation for moral, tactical, or business (Why teach them to fish when I make a living as a fish seller?) reasons. Or maybe they are Beethoven and Mozart among a sea of nameless composers.
    PAG. There are an awful lot of generalizations here, which you then focus below in an alarmingly narrow fashion, when you scratch your head.

    Quote Originally Posted by henjoyuko View Post
    I scratch my head though when I ponder the question: Wouldn’t a father allow his son to inherit the totality of the family business? I’m guessing the answer would be in the affirmative, unless the son was seen as an inappropriate candidate for the transmission for any number of reasons, or if the father just didn’t give a care.
    PAG. You can ponder the question, but you also need to ponder (a) whether the father quite saw the question in terms of ‘the totality of the family business’, and (b) ditto, for the answer you ascribe to him in respect of the son, and (c) The son seen as an inappropriate candidate by whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by henjoyuko View Post
    Still one might not see the full result of this transmission manifested if a) the son had a limited capacity/talent to learn (not everyone is a Beethoven or a Mozart), or b) the son purposefully chose not to display that transmission. ‘B’ seems rather unlikely to me though because a public manifestation was already set as a precedent by the father and proved to be both quite useful for marketing and quite difficult to “steal.”
    PAG. Actually, I think that c) is a plausible alternative. The son might have had the capacity, but was never given the chance to exploit it; the son quite certainly chose not to display that transmission for reasons that the father simply was not in a position to understand, let alone appreciate.

    Quote Originally Posted by henjoyuko View Post
    Anyway, as you can see I’m not offering any answers here, just thinking out loud.
    PAG. So am I.

    As always, best wishes,

    PAG
    Peter Goldsbury,
    Forum Administrator,
    Hiroshima, Japan

  11. #11
    Mark Murray Guest

    Default

    After reading Allen's post, I had a thought which seemed kind of stupid. Stupid in that it seems so obvious. What if Ueshiba's vision of aikido, the martial art, was truly literal? It was the way of aiki. In other words, no jutsu at all. Just pure aiki that he merged with his spiritual foundation. This is the later years, mind you.

    And when students wanted to learn his "aikido", he looked at what he knew, Daito ryu, and looked at the thousands of techniques and decided to trim it down because to learn his aikido, you didn't need all of them.

    Certainly explains a lot of his rantings and quotes. It's all the same, you aren't doing my aikido, etc, etc. And it'd explain why his son chose a different manner for aikido worldwide. I mean, how do you teach the father's vision? To the masses? Better to just use the core jutsu that his father taught. After all, the jutsu still contained the message of blending and harmony.

    And maybe that's why Ueshiba didn't meet with Takeda. He really didn't want to do the break/kill of Daito ryu. He was leaning more and more towards the spiritual version of expressing aiki. And maybe that's why there was a falling out between Takeda and Deguchi. Takeda saw a lot of potential in Ueshiba but also saw that Deguchi's vision would change things. But I'm digressing from my main thoughts.

    Ueshiba's vision of a pure martial art built upon aiki (from Daito ryu) but yet weirdly enough, didn't include a version of jutsu. It only included the pared down syllabus of Daito ryu because Ueshiba needed something to demonstrate and teach students with. Maybe it went beyond changing Daito ryu's bring in and down for break/kill to aikido's pass-through? Maybe for Ueshiba it was purely spiritual aiki and that required the pass-through outlook. Not the pass-through outlook for jutsu's sake, but as a byproduct of Ueshiba trying to do pure spiritual aiki in a martial context. And that would be something very different than any other martial art.

    As Allen stated, just thinking out loud here.

    Mark

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    56
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Hi Peter,

    Thanks for the reply. I'll see what I can do to clarify my random blather . . .


    PAG. Are you sure that this is what he meant? You have put it in terms of ‘western’ existential concepts. Are you sure that this captures “katsu haya bi”? He actually taught ‘waza’, which seem to me to have beginnings, middles and also ends.

    ADB: Well, No, I'm pretty sure I don't know what he meant. (I'm probably also a little fuzzy on Western existential concepts as well, to be honest.) But I think that Masa Katsu A Katsu, Katsu Haya Bi is a pretty neat phrase/formula/explication of Aiki as matches my growing understanding of what that (Aiki) is based on personal experience, the teachings of Shirata sensei and my understandings of the teachings of Ueshiba, his peers and his teacher (or what I can discern about what his teacher taught based on the information available to me.) {BTW, perhaps I should admit that, as a second generation student of a first generation student (depending upon one's breakdown) of O-sensei, I maintain very little hope of learning Ueshiba Morihei's Aikido and am rather suspicious of those that claim to do so. Rather, I do my best to understand and reproduce Aikido as it was taught to me by my teacher knowing that it won’t be, can’t be, and perhaps shouldn’t be the same.}

    and

    Yes, he did teach 'waza,' which I agree seem to have beginnings, middles and ends. He also taught 'dosa' and 'ho.' But to my mind none of these are Aiki. Perhaps they are means to Aiki, but they are not Aiki in and of themselves, which explains that rather odd statement made by Ueshiba,more than once if I'm correct, "There are no kata in Aiki-do."

    PAG. There are an awful lot of generalizations here, which you then focus below in an alarmingly narrow fashion, when you scratch your head.

    ADB: Well yeah. That is the nature of brain storming I suppose.

    PAG. You can ponder the question, but you also need to ponder (a) whether the father quite saw the question in terms of ‘the totality of the family business’, and (b) ditto, for the answer you ascribe to him in respect of the son, and (c) The son seen as an inappropriate candidate by whom?

    ADB: Good points all. Out of curiosity, what are you implying and who are you alluding to when you as the question, “The son seen as an inappropriate candidate by whom?”

    PAG. Actually, I think that c) is a plausible alternative. The son might have had the capacity, but was never given the chance to exploit it; the son quite certainly chose not to display that transmission for reasons that the father simply was not in a position to understand, let alone appreciate.

    ADB: Could you expand on what you mean by “it” when you say “but was never given the chance to exploit it; . . .” I’m tempted to think that you are referring to the breadth of technical compendium which he most assuredly was exposed to rather than Aiki proper and its appendant attributes and powers. I can understand the former but not the latter. If you meant the latter, then I’m missing something important I suspect. Why would “the son quite certainly chose not to display that transmission for reasons that the father simply was not in a position to understand, let alone appreciate.” ??


    PAG. So am I.

    ADB: Me too still, but enjoying it nonetheless. Sorry about the delayed response but my 2 year old son requested that he be allowed to stay home and “play with Dad” rather than go to the store with his Mom and sister. It probably won’t be long before he wants nothing to do with me, so I try to savor every moment!

    Kind regards,

    Allen
    Allen Beebe

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    56
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Murray View Post
    After reading Allen's post, I had a thought which seemed kind of stupid. Stupid in that it seems so obvious. What if Ueshiba's vision of aikido, the martial art, was truly literal? It was the way of aiki. In other words, no jutsu at all. Just pure aiki that he merged with his spiritual foundation.

    Mark
    Hi Mark,

    Yeah that is kind of where I'm at. Keeping in mind that "his spiritual foundation" appears to be how he understood Aiki so even that is pragmatic. That would explain why he didn't see Aiki-do as a religion but the key to understand religion.

    Also, I would keep in mind that he was a human and as such was probably as susceptible to double standards and internal conflicts as the rest of us.

    Finally, especially after a little epiphany yesterday, I really wonder if he "softened" Daito Ryu to bring it into line with his spiritual vision. Here is what makes me wonder: During the war years he taught soldiers to kill and the Kobukan certainly didn't have a reputation for its peace, love and harmony. Challengers left the premisses broken. The Asahi film was made during the war years (Japan wasn't at war with the U.S. at the time but it certainly was involved in military expansion in neighboring countries) and reflects the smooth and expansive expression of Aikido seen later. Fast forward to Stan Prannin sharing Budo Renshu or Budo (can't remember which) with Saito sensei and Saito sensei stating that this was the first time he'd ever seen the book but both marveling at how what Saito sensei had preserved of what Ueshiba sensei had taught him (POST WAR) was virtually identical.

    Hmmm

    After O-sensei's death, Shirata sensei would visit and train in Iwama at his kohai Saito sensei's dojo because, for him, that was about as close an approximation to the training he used to enjoy with Ueshiba sensei as was available at the time.

    My point is, as far as I can tell, Ueshiba sensei changed Daito Ryu to suit himself and that is about it. I don't think he necessarily changed the waza to suit his religious views. Also, I suspect that he didn't see his martial pursuits to be in conflict with his religious ones. He single-mindedly perused both (another paradox).

    Anyway, that, roughly stated, is where my understanding is at in this whole mess.
    Allen Beebe

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    56
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Oh, and if O-sensei didn't really change what and how he taught Aikido . . . who did?

    Peter . . . your assistance please!


    Allen Beebe

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Hiroshima, Japan.
    Posts
    2,550
    Likes (received)
    151

    Default

    Good Morning, Allen,

    I opened my iMac and saw your response. Here are a few more thoughts.

    1. With Masa katsu etc, I have a hard time distinguishing what O Sensei meant by the phrase from what the compiler of the Kojiki--or whoever came up with the name for the deity--meant by it. Actually, the Kojiki complier makes it easier: he gives a clear context of some sort of contest between Ama-terasu and Susa-no-o. With O Sensei this original context is absent. Sure, he could be talking about 'instant victory', but elsewhere he talks about aiki as something that completely transcends victory or defeat.

    Have you quarried through Takemusu Aiki, or read carefully John S.'s renderings in the new book? It is hard going to study and ponder the phrase itself and the context each time it appears. So I myself prefer to stay with the Kojiki version.

    2. As for the meaning of 'it', which you asked about, it was a quote from your own earlier post:

    "Still one might not see the full result of this transmission manifested if a) the son had a limited capacity/talent to learn (not everyone is a Beethoven or a Mozart), or b) the son purposefully chose not to display that transmission."

    Since you appeared to be thinking of capacity/talent purely in terms of how O Sensei saw it, I suggested another alternative, which was that the son had the capacity, but chose to display it in different terms. Hence the father's angry outbursts on his occasional visits to the Aikikai Hombu.

    The more I read by and about Kisshomaru, the more I am convinced he knew exactly what he was doing. It is not a matter of aiki or the number of waza: it is a huge generational shift.

    PAG
    Peter Goldsbury,
    Forum Administrator,
    Hiroshima, Japan

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 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
  •