PDA

View Full Version : Ellis' post about cover-up and Ueshiba


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


MM
06-05-2009, 06:25 PM
Mark, agreed with everything else you write, but you and others who write about a conspiracy, a cover up, are absolutely wrong. Cut it out! Jeez. Just because it wasn't talked about in some aikido dojo in x-town, American, doesn't mean there's a cover-up. There's just no interest that far from the center.
When I went to Japan in 1976, I asked about Daito-ryu (I'd read about it in ALL the forwards of all the the aikido books I'd read - sure, there were some not so nice things written about Takeda, but the gist was there) and I was told where to find it, who taught it, etc. It was common knowledge. That aikido people weren't interested in it is quite understandable, really.

Hi Ellis,
Sorry it's taken this long to respond. Things were sort of busy at home and I needed to go through a couple of books. I think you may have taken a tangent here based upon my poorly phrased sentence. I didn't mean that there wasn't information (although it was sparse) or a cover-up about Daito ryu itself. I meant that there was a cover-up regarding just how critical Takeda and Daito ryu were to Ueshiba and his Aikido.

1. Stan's Aikido Journal DVD of back issues and Stan's diligent research into Daito ryu is fairly well known. If not for Stan … well, it either would have taken quite a bit longer or we may never have known the extent of Daito ryu training on Ueshiba.

2. The Spirit of Aikido by Kisshomaru Ueshiba. Printed 1984 in English (although mine is second printing of 1985).
Page 97 has historical background of Morihei Ueshiba. Most of the page is devoted to the spiritual side and Deguchi.

After his father's death and during his stay at Ayabe, the Founder's dedication to budo became single-minded, primarily due to the encouragement of Deguchi. Prior to this time he had practiced and mastered several martial arts, including swordsmanship in the Shinkage School, jujutsu in the Kito and Daito schools and others. Most remarkable among his accomplishments in the Daito School from Master Takeda Sokaku, whom he had met by chance at a Hokkaido inn in 1915, when he was 32. It was the jujutsu that opened the Founder's eyes to the deep meaning of the martial arts; Daito principles differ from aikido's but many techniques are shared in common.

Page 98.

While choosing the new term aiki may have had something to do with the influences of the Kito and Daito schools, both of which are based on the principle of yin and yang and the use of ki, the fundamental source was Master Ueshiba's own budo training, life experience and the realization of ki gained during his stay at Ayabe. The most important influence was the mastery of kotodama, …

Remember, most of pages 97 and 98 are devoted to spiritual development and Deguchi. These are the only bits that mention Daito ryu.

Page 99 covers the period from 1925 to 1936 with no mention of Takeda or Daito ryu.

3. Abundant Peace: The Biography of Morihei Ueshiba Founder of Aikido by John Stevens. 1987, I think. But my edition is well down the line.

This book has a fairly decent chapter on the history of Takeda, however the training between Takeda and Ueshiba is majorly downplayed. Their relationship is painted as horrible and strained.

Starting on page 14 (my edition), Stevens talks about Ueshiba training with Takeda and then leaving because of his father's illness.


It is my view that Morihei was both spiritually restless, still searching for life's purpose, and disenchanted with Sokaku's teaching methods, anxious to experiment on his own, free of the ceaseless demands of that exacting and exasperating mentor.

Page 37 tells of a meeting between Miura and Ueshiba where Ueshiba bests Miura.

Your techniques are a world apart from those of the Daito ryu. It is true budo. Please enroll me as your disciple.


Page 43 really sums up the way Daito ryu was presented.

Before relating the birth of Aikido, I would like to summarize Morihei's relationships to the two major influences in his life: Sokaku Takeda and Onisaburo Deguchi.

As indicated earlier, the relationship between Sokaku and Morihei was strained almost from the start. Sokaku's son, Tokimune, who currently heads the Daito ryu, has written of his father's tender affection toward Morihei, but the truth of the matter is that Sokaku was terribly jealous of Morihei; he raided Morihei's dojos for students -- "Train with me, the real Daito ryu master" -- and, in effect, extorted money from his best pupil. Sokaku invited himself to the Kobukan not long after it was opened to present Morihei with a certificate he did not need or want.


Stevens goes on to write that Morihei "had long before surpassed Sokaku as a martial artist". He writes about one of the early disciples (I'm guessing of Ueshiba) pretending to be effectively pinned by Takeda but really wasn't and that things like that never happened when working with Ueshiba.

Page 44 caps it all with this:

Initially, Morihei -- essentially a self-taught master -- used his Daito ryu licenses to give himself a measure of legitimacy in document-obsessed Japan.

I don't think it's hard to see that there was a cover-up going on with Takeda, Daito ryu, and Ueshiba regarding Ueshiba's training. So, let me ask you this, when you were in Japan and the knowledge of Daito ryu was common, how common was the fact that Ueshiba owed a large portion of his skills to Takeda and Daito ryu? Or was it downplayed? covered-up?

Peter Goldsbury
06-05-2009, 08:46 PM
Mark,

Well, I am not Ellis, but there is one book you have missed and the English translation has just been published. On pp. 93 - 100 of A Life in Aikido, Kisshomaru gives an account of Morihei Ueshiba's meeting and early training with Sokaku Takeda. Kisshomaru's book (originally published in Japanese in 1987) is one of the sources for the biography by John Stevens. Stevens has revised this book and given it a new title. This is Invincible Warrior and I have drawn your attention to this book before.

Best wishes,

PAG

Ellis Amdur
06-06-2009, 01:25 AM
I objected to the word "conspiracy." That one or another writer slants history is not a conspiracy. That one or another shihan is dismissive or lies, is not a conspiracy. I went to Japan in 1976. I'd done aikido two years. I wanted to do Daito-ryu. Takeda was described as a not nice man, but in my mind, there was no doubt that he was as great or greater than Ueshiba. Daito-ryu was my goal. Until I saw it. What was presented publicly was a profound disappointment.
Two other points:
1. The real "cover-up" was enacted by Daito-ryu. If they had wanted the limelight, all they had to do was do what Ueshiba did - wow rich patrons and get sponsorship. They chose to be secretive. Look, when Sagawa states that until his latter years he didn't even teach his OWN students the real goods, is it any wonder that many would have a jaundiced eye towards DR.
2. The aiki arts are rife with a tendency to denigrate each other - to deny others' validity or even existence. Examples?

Yukawa, Ueshiba's student, had to pretend to fall for Takeda, per Tohei K.
Takeda had to go to Ayabe to help Ueshiba handle the Navy guys who were too strong for him, per Tokimune
Inoue Noriaki took ukemi for Takeda, but never learned from him, and had to take the falls to make Takeda look good, per Inoue himself
Shioda learned real aiki from Kodo Horikawa, not his own teacher Ueshiba, say many, despite Tenryu stating that Shioda was the closest to Ueshiba in technique
Aikido is better than Daito-ryu, because the latter lacks "kokyu," per Saito M.
Kodo Horikawa is my student, per Sagawa, because he signed his "book," after a couple of days of instruction to fill in some blanks in Horikawa's own learning
Yoshinkan is "hard," per Aikikai
"Tohei? Tohei who?" per Aikikai
"Everyone in Tokyo is weak. Their aikido is useless." Tanaka Bansen to me
"Hombu Aikido is weak. Only Iwama is doing Osensei's aikido." Sugawara T. to me

On the other hand, note Okumura, one of the top shihan at the Aikikai in one of Stan Pranin's early interviews - saying something like, "You should contact Kodo Horikawa. He studied with Takeda sensei longer than Osensei."

It's all high dudgeon over little. The reason "aiki" (internal training) has been little known has been
a. EIther Ueshiba didn't teach it or his students didn't learn it
b. Daito-ryu didn't present it publicly after Takeda, and, in fact, used a teaching procedure that ensured that few of their own students would progress with any speed.

Best
Ellis Amdur

MM
06-06-2009, 06:31 AM
Mark,

Well, I am not Ellis, but there is one book you have missed and the English translation has just been published. On pp. 93 - 100 of A Life in Aikido, Kisshomaru gives an account of Morihei Ueshiba's meeting and early training with Sokaku Takeda. Kisshomaru's book (originally published in Japanese in 1987) is one of the sources for the biography by John Stevens. Stevens has revised this book and given it a new title. This is Invincible Warrior and I have drawn your attention to this book before.

Best wishes,

PAG

Peter,

While the original book by Kisshomaru was published in Japan in 1987, other books published outside of Japan in that same time frame seemed to have had very different information.

I didn't include Steven's new book because it is outside the time frame for my posting about a supposed cover up. I haven't forgotten your post that pointed me towards the book, it's just that early 90s to present are quite a bit later than the 1980s era of books. Unless there are versions printed prior to those dates?

I haven't had time yet, but it'll be interesting to compare the early English books to the current round of English books for Ueshiba's printed history. It's on the list of things to do. Even my Japanese studies have slowed because of life intervening.

Thank you,
Mark

MM
06-06-2009, 06:56 AM
I objected to the word "conspiracy." That one or another writer slants history is not a conspiracy. That one or another shihan is dismissive or lies, is not a conspiracy. I went to Japan in 1976. I'd done aikido two years. I wanted to do Daito-ryu. Takeda was described as a not nice man, but in my mind, there was no doubt that he was as great or greater than Ueshiba. Daito-ryu was my goal. Until I saw it. What was presented publicly was a profound disappointment.


Well, conspiracy would be hard to prove. And I'll give that you had quite a bit more knowledge and experiences than me in that time frame. However, there are certain points that I will argue. :)


Two other points:
1. The real "cover-up" was enacted by Daito-ryu. If they had wanted the limelight, all they had to do was do what Ueshiba did - wow rich patrons and get sponsorship. They chose to be secretive. Look, when Sagawa states that until his latter years he didn't even teach his OWN students the real goods, is it any wonder that many would have a jaundiced eye towards DR.


Still doesn't explain how, here in the U.S., quite a few books and people "slanted" history to the point that Daito ryu had very little influence on Ueshiba's skills. It's hard to blame Daito ryu on that when many of these books and people fell under the authority of Kisshomaru at the time.

Granted, I agree with you about Daito Ryu being secretive and not grabbing the lime light.


2. The aiki arts are rife with a tendency to denigrate each other - to deny others' validity or even existence. Examples?


How many events that you listed were after people started learning that Daito ryu really was a main influence on Ueshiba's skills, say mid 90s to now? I'm still convinced that the Daito ryu influence on Ueshiba was either downplayed greatly on purpose or actually was being covered up. Why get all the spiritual details right but miss out completely on the martial aspect? As someone pointed out to me in PM, one of my quotes above has incorrect info. Ueshiba didn't study Kito ryu, yet it was printed that he did.

If you use Stan's research as a pivot point, it seems quite a bit changed about Ueshiba's martial "history" from the 70s-80s to now.


It's all high dudgeon over little. The reason "aiki" (internal training) has been little known has been
a. EIther Ueshiba didn't teach it or his students didn't learn it
b. Daito-ryu didn't present it publicly after Takeda, and, in fact, used a teaching procedure that ensured that few of their own students would progress with any speed.

Best
Ellis Amdur

Agreed. :)

Thanks,
Mark

DH
06-06-2009, 07:41 AM
It's all high dudgeon over little. The reason "aiki" (internal training) has been little known has been
a. EIther Ueshiba didn't teach it or his students didn't learn it
b. Daito-ryu didn't present it publicly after Takeda, and, in fact, used a teaching procedure that ensured that few of their own students would progress with any speed.

Best
Ellis Amdur

Very good snapshot of the aiki arts.
RE: Not teaching or not learning of aiki:
You could include a teacher from Hisa's school who went to learn from Tokimune. He wanted power/ aiki. Tokimune showed him a series of Solo exercises to do, the guy brings them back, and supposedly no one wants to do them at the Takumakai. He asks Tokimune. Tokimune says "No one wants to do them here either. They only want to do techniques." You have solo training in the aiki arts, you have specific paired exercises outside of kata as a more direct means to get it. Yet most everyone is trying to get it through kata with varying degrees of success.

I agree with negating the conspiracy idea. On the whole individual behaviors are only that; individual acts. It remains a fact that the individuals all seemed to have arrived at the same mistaken representation of the DR connection though.
So, one could rightly ponder:
How did so many English speaking authors and teachers end up playing the same tune? Who was the source of such information at that time?
Why did the English speaking versions get "corrected" so dramatically after...Stan Pranin Why do the newer versions of Ueshiba's martial history seem to "follow" his work?

Re: the idea that DR was ever wanting the limelight. I would agree to that. With few exceptions they have chosen to remain small and out of the public eye. As you know they have had opportunities to pursue more recognition and declined.

I think the link is important, and a worthwhile pursuit. I also think your observations of the way aiki arts treat their own is interesting. The aiki arts-which stood apart from koryu jujutsu in form and execution, were probably staged to have these kinds of problems due to the nature of the transmission of the arts themselves. When you look at koryu you see ( for the most part) a set transmission model of kata. You learn the art one kata after the other. There are open secrets. In other words you know you have to go through step 1,2,3 before you get into the gokui and its a process. In the aiki arts, aiki skews everything in that people get it before others and it does not always follow the path set for everyone. And that happens and is played out among a wide ranging syllabury bettween schools that is so diverse its almost like they were doing different arts. Not without merit is the fact that each of the big five under Takeda all swear they are doing what they were taught, while each looks so different. Which in and of itself proves out the the idea that "aiki" skewed everything-possibly even right from the source; Takeda himself. There is the distinct possibility that he, just like Ueshiba, was ever evolving his art. And that Ueshiba's statements that "Aiki is formless" was not only a direct quote from his teacher but a defining commentary that explains the entire framework that joins these arts.
Logic would suggest that since aiki looks so different and is so strident as a defining aspect in such diverse arts, it should mean that it is a process that can be trained outside of those arts, but be used inside of the same arts, were someone to take that route.
I would love to read a more in depth take on why the Dai Nippon Butoku kai set aside a "classification" for demonstrating "the way of aiki" in 1942. We know Ueshiba liked the name and kept it for his current Aikibudo art and "Aikido" as a name, was born. But I am interested in whether they were considering it as a classification for Ueshiba only, or was it in recognition that the aiki arts were themselves a different category. They obviously knew he was a Takeda man. As has been suggested in the past, I wonder if they were making a broader distinction, instead of a specific example.
Cheers
Dan

gdandscompserv
06-06-2009, 08:12 AM
Where did Takeda get "it" from?

Fred Little
06-06-2009, 08:47 AM
V
I would love to read a more in depth take on why the Dai Nippon Butoku kai set aside a "classification" for demonstrating "the way of aiki" in 1942. We know Ueshiba liked the name and kept it for his current Aikibudo art and "Aikido" as a name, was born. But I am interested in whether they were considering it as a classification for Ueshiba only, or was it in recognition that the aiki arts were themselves a different category. They obviously knew he was a Takeda man. As has been suggested in the past, I wonder if they were making a broader distinction, instead of a specific example.
Cheers
Dan

In January of 1942, Morihei Ueshiba appointed Minoru Hirai as the Director of General Affairs for the Kobukan dojo. In October of 1942, Hirai Sensei was sent as a representative to the Dai Nihon Butokukai (The Greater Japan Virtues Society) where he played a major role in establishing the name of Ueshiba's art, changing it from aikibudo to aikido.

In 1945, Minoru Hirai was awarded the rank of Hanshi (master) from the Dai Nihon Butokukai and in October of that same year established the Korindo dojo in Shizuoka. In September of 1953 he established the Korindo dojo in Tokyo and in January of 1954 established the Nihon Korinkai organization.

Note: After rejecting the proposed name of aikibudo, the Dai Nihon Butokukai established a new section to include yawara and generically labeled this new category as "aikido." The name aikido, although a category established within the Dai Nihon Butokukai referring to all jujutsu based systems, was used by Ueshiba to refer to his modern art.

The above series of events appears to be a point of contention between the Nihon Korinkai and the Aikikai Foundation. Although Minoru Hirai Sensei served as the Director of General Affairs for the Kobukan dojo and was instrumental in the name change of Ueshiba's art, he was a member of the Dai Nihon Butokukai prior to the addition of the new yawara section referred to as aikido. There appears to be a disagreement regarding the course of events and the Nihon Korinkai rejects the claim that Hirai was "sent" as a representative by Ueshiba.

Today, the name aikido is generically used in reference to the art created by Morihei Ueshiba. But according to the Nihon Korinkai, aikido was actually founded by Minoru Hirai and little stress, if any, is emphasized regarding the fact that Minoru Hirai studied under Morihei Ueshiba.

Excerpted from an interview with John Goss at the following url:
http://www.daitoryuonline.com/article.php?articleID=654

In other words, as far as the Butokai was concerned, "aikido" is less a "''classification' for demonstrating 'the way of aiki'" than it is a mutually agreeable label for a bureaucratic section that was developed so that the aikibudo and jujutsu guys wouldn't be under the control of the judo section of the Butokukai. No specific example, no broad distinction. No technical significance whatsoever.beyond the sociological recogniion that the aikibudo people were a bunch of bitchy little Heathers who couldn't play nicely with others, or each other, so it was best to give them their own little padded room.

Any claim broader than that isn't much more than grandiose wish-fulfillment and retrospective projection, something disgruntled humans looking to a prior golden age from the perspective of an oh-so unsatisfactory contemporary world have been doing for millenia. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Best,

FL

Peter Goldsbury
06-06-2009, 09:17 AM
Hello Mark,

A few more comments.

While the original book by Kisshomaru was published in Japan in 1987, other books published outside of Japan in that same time frame seemed to have had very different information.
PAG. You need to give more information here, if you want to convince me of a cover-up or conspiracy of some sort. What time frame are you talking about here and what books published outside Japan do you have in mind? Apart from those published by Tohei Koichi and one published in French by Tadashi Abbe, the only one that comes to my mind is Kisshomaru Ueshiba's Aikido, which was published in the late 60s and is a translation (re-editing) of two books published in Japanese earlier.

I didn't include Steven's new book because it is outside the time frame for my posting about a supposed cover up. I haven't forgotten your post that pointed me towards the book, it's just that early 90s to present are quite a bit later than the 1980s era of books. Unless there are versions printed prior to those dates?
PAG. So what IS your time frame?
Secondly, judging from your response to Ellis, you appear to be stating that the cover-up / conspiracy took place only in the US. I started training in the UK in 1969 and devoured Tohei's earlier books. I never heard any talk of a cover-up in the UK, nor in the US, where I trained in the mid 70s.

So, if we return to your opening post, I would discount Point 3, since Stevens himself did not acknowledge any material not previously published (except probable oral discussions with his teacher Rinjiro Shirata, not the best potential witness of an Aikikai cover-up / conspiracy).

I would also discount Point 2, since the Japanese original of The Spirit of Aikido was published in 1981. The items you specify are covered in much more detail in the 1987 biography and so I need to know why this 1987 biography does not fit into your time frame.

The problem for me here is that you are seeing evidence of a cover-up / conspiracy in the English translations, but nobody saw such evidence in the Japanese originals. Of course, this might simply mean that in Japan no one was looking for any evidence, as Ellis suggests.

This leaves Point 1, which is the research of Stanley Pranin, recorded in the issues of Aiki News and Aikido Journal. I know from many private conversations that Stan's principal target was the 'official' version of aikido history, put out by 'the Aikikai'. However, it is still a stretching of the evidence, in my opinion, to talk of a cover-up or conspiracy.

Not long before he died, Stanley Pranin and I spent six hours interviewing Sadateru Arikawa Sensei, who, along with Shigenobu Okumura, was the prime 'historian' in the Aikikai. I drew up a list of questions for this interview: questions like what were the defining attributes of Aikido, in comparison with Daito-ryu; whether the Aikikai (= Kisshomaru Ueshiba) had 'doctored' the history of aikido. Arikawa Sensei sought the advice, not of the Aikikai, but of Katsuyuki Kondo, of Daito-ryu, who urged him to give the interview. He gave the interview, which Stan taped (with Arikawa Sensei's permission). Actually, Arikawa Sensei was Stan's 'protector' in the Aikikai Hombu and, believe me, I know what this means.

So, since Arikawa Sensei did not give permission for the interview to be published (yet), my own private response has been to complement Stan's researches by publishing the results of my own research. I was never in a position to conduct interviews and ask the questions that Stan did not ask, but I suspect that I have a deeper acquaintance with the crucial cultural aspects. The result is the series of AikIWeb columns.

Finally, since you are talking of cover-up and conspiracy about how critical Daito-ryu was to aikido, I think you need to consider another possible cover-up, which concerns Morihei Ueshiba's obsession with deities, kotodama, and establishing the correct harmony between the 'three worlds'. This is why I believe you need to read the English translation of Kisshomaru Ueshiba's biography very carefully indeed. Kisshomaru's biography is much more subtle than that of John Stevens (in either edition).

As always, best wishes,

PAG

Peter Goldsbury
06-06-2009, 09:27 AM
In other words, as far as the Butokai was concerned, "aikido" is less a "''classification' for demonstrating 'the way of aiki'" than it is a mutually agreeable label for a bureaucratic section that was developed so that the aikibudo and jujutsu guys wouldn't be under the control of the judo section of the Butokukai. No specific example, no broad distinction. No technical significance whatsoever.beyond the sociological recogniion that the aikibudo people were a bunch of bitchy little Heathers who couldn't play nicely with others, or each other, so it was best to give them their own little padded room.

Any claim broader than that isn't much more than grandiose wish-fulfillment and retrospective projection, something disgruntled humans looking to a prior golden age from the perspective of an oh-so unsatisfactory contemporary world have been doing for millenia. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Hello Fred,

:D :D :D :D :D

Best wishes,

PAG

Allen Beebe
06-06-2009, 11:22 AM
OK, just for kicks:

Mentions Daito Ryu in some form or another:
1956 Tomiki "Judo,Appendix:Aikido
1968 Shioda "Dynamic Aikido"
1978 Kisshomaru "Aikido"

Does NOT mention Daito Ryu in some form or another:
1960 Makiyama (Claude St. Denise) "The Power of Aikido"
1960 Tohei "Aikido, The Arts of Self Defense"
1962 Tohei "What is Aikido"
1966 Tohei "Aikido in Daily Life"
1970 Tegner "Bruce Tegner's Complete Book of Aikido and Holds & Locks"

I didn't look in Saito's Series or Singly Published Book.

I tried to stay in the 50's-60's (and failed twice) because from the 70's there are too many books for lazy old me to look through. For one Tohei went on a printing frenzy after his departure and his histories in these books are understandably skewed as were the Aikikai's from that moment on. BTW, Stan started mimeographing AikiNews in the 70's and the early editions make interesting "historical" reading. One of the reasons I respect Stan is because he wasn't afraid to publish stuff that contradicted earlier issues. He really appeared to be publishing "for the record" although it is important to keep in mind that even he "knows things" that he hasn't published.

Anyway, like I said, I just looked for "kicks."

Allen

Mike Sigman
06-06-2009, 02:41 PM
1970 Tegner "Bruce Tegner's Complete Book of Aikido and Holds & Locks"
Allen, I have to admit that you might be doing a leg-pull here that I'm not catching, but surely you jest in listing Tegner as a source? Even the title should raise flags. :D

Mike

Ellis Amdur
06-06-2009, 03:16 PM
1. How many judo books go into great detail about Tenjin Shin'yo-ryu and Kito-ryu, AND make a point how wonderful those jujutsu schools were and (better than judo???)
2. How many Japanese karate books go into detail about their Okinawan roots, and (how much better Okinawan Karate is?)
3. How many Taekwondo books break down how their forms are from Shotokan?
4. How many of you go into great detail about your first marriage when you are trying to hook up with someone new?
5. How many of you explain to the prospective owner of your new home that you have a little mold problem in the basement, but only during winter?
6. How many Iman talk about the Jewish and Christian roots in Islam? And how many rabbi's refer to the Babylonian myths of the Flood and the Garden of Eden? How many Christians note that the Old Testament description of the Messiah is someone who brings peace to earth - now - and by definition, then, any Messiah who hasn't created world peace cannot . . . ?
7. By the way, did you know that winking in enumerated as a sin in the Old Testament, although no one knows why?

Ellis Amdur

Allen Beebe
06-06-2009, 04:58 PM
Allen, I have to admit that you might be doing a leg-pull here that I'm not catching, but surely you jest in listing Tegner as a source? Even the title should raise flags. :D

Mike

What?!?! Bruce Tegner is a LEGEND! He was an MMA guy before the term MMA was invented. I'm surprised to hear a person with your CMA background besmirching one of the first guys to publicly teach iron palm.* Next thing you'll be telling me to take down my poster of Charles Atlas and stop doing dynamic tension exercises. ;) [Oops! See? Now I'm a sinner and Ellis has me all confused about what to do about it!]

Allen

*Or at least punching ironing boards.

Allen Beebe
06-06-2009, 05:18 PM
1. By the way, did you know that winking in enumerated as a sin in the Old Testament, although no one knows why?

Ellis,

Context is everything. Next time you happen to visit a Synagogue try "winking" at the Rabbi's wife. I'm sure he will find one of 10 good reasons for that to be a sin. Your wife will probably find one of 10 good reasons for you not to do that as well! :D

Just shoot'n from the hip,
Allen

Dan Rubin
06-06-2009, 10:38 PM
Does NOT mention Daito Ryu in some form or another:
....
1960 Tohei "Aikido, The Arts of Self Defense"
1962 Tohei "What is Aikido"
....


1961 (revised edition) Tohei "Aikido, The Arts of Self-Defense":
"He practiced almost all the existing martial arts, beginning with Kito-ryu Jujutsu, Yagyu-ryu, Aioi-ryu Hozoin-ryu and finally Daito-ryu."

1962 Tohei "What is Aikido?":
"He practiced almost all the existing martial arts, beginning with Kito-ryu Jujitsu, Yagyu-ryu, Aioi-ryu, Hozoin-ryu and finally Daito-ryu."

1968 Tohei "This is Aikido":
"He first trained in the Kito school of jujutsu and later went on to study Yagyu, Aioi, Hozoin, and finally Daito jujutsu."

Allen Beebe
06-07-2009, 02:26 AM
1961 (revised edition) Tohei "Aikido, The Arts of Self-Defense":
"He practiced almost all the existing martial arts, beginning with Kito-ryu Jujutsu, Yagyu-ryu, Aioi-ryu Hozoin-ryu and finally Daito-ryu."

1962 Tohei "What is Aikido?":
"He practiced almost all the existing martial arts, beginning with Kito-ryu Jujitsu, Yagyu-ryu, Aioi-ryu, Hozoin-ryu and finally Daito-ryu."

1968 Tohei "This is Aikido":
"He first trained in the Kito school of jujutsu and later went on to study Yagyu, Aioi, Hozoin, and finally Daito jujutsu."

Oops! Dan can you post what section heading or location those quotes are in and I'll check my editions and see if I need to amend what I posted. Maybe there is mention of Daito Ryu in the books I posted and I missed it. I'd hate to inadvertently give false info.

Thanks,
Allen

aikilouis
06-07-2009, 06:33 AM
Daito-ryu is also mentioned in Tadake Abe and Jean Zin's manual in French from 1958.

MM
06-07-2009, 06:49 AM
Peter, all,

Don't have the time right now to address the questions. But, I want to clear up my point of view. I'm not arguing that Daito ryu was hidden or covered up at all. Yes, it's there in the books. My point is that Daito ryu (and Takeda) was so downplayed and marginalized that both were never shown to be the major factor in Ueshiba's training.

In other words, look at all the examples posted from the books. Stevens even goes as far as to print "Morihei -- essentially a self-taught master". Whenever Ueshiba's training was discussed in books, Daito ryu was amidst several other martial arts, some of which Ueshiba had never studied and some of which he studied for about a year.

Peter, I'm not sure of the exact dates and I'll have to do some digging for them. But, my best guess is up to the 1980s and possibly the very early 90s, the books printed here (and to answer your other question, I don't have info on what books were like outside the U.S. so I don't include them.) skewed, downplayed, or otherwise covered up the fact that Takeda's Daito ryu played the single major role on Ueshiba's martial training.

I make note of this because I think Stan's research was the pivotal point where books started to address Daito ryu as being more than just another martial art Ueshiba studied in his self taught genius.

And just as history has shown us that bringing certain things to the light of day creates the effect of a change in what was once "canon", I think it is starting to happen again -- this time with Daito ryu aiki. It's kind of interesting to watch it unfold.

Peter Goldsbury
06-07-2009, 07:43 AM
Peter, all,

Don't have the time right now to address the questions. But, I want to clear up my point of view. I'm not arguing that Daito ryu was hidden or covered up at all. Yes, it's there in the books. My point is that Daito ryu (and Takeda) was so downplayed and marginalized that both were never shown to be the major factor in Ueshiba's training.



Hello Mark,

Yes, I am aware of this. However, I think that suggestions of a cover-up and conspiracy become much harder to demonstrate.

To me, talk of a conspiracy / cover-up suggests that someone, Kisshomaru Ueshiba, for example, actually knew all the time that his father's Daito-ryu training was really far, far more important than his connections with Omoto, but he deliberately chose to downplay or suppress the former, in order that people would (erroneously) believe that the latter was more important: in other words, systematic lying took place on a major scale.

I do not believe that such a serious moral lapse can be demonstrated, even from Stanley Pranin's research.

In your post, you mention Daito-ryu and Takeda as the major factor, rather than a major factor (which is what I myself believe). So I think you need to show more evidence than you have done so far.

Best wishes,

PAG

DH
06-07-2009, 08:33 AM
Mark
What did you think to accomplish or point out? Everything is obvious to everyone that will see it the way they want to see it. And Peter is accurate in that there is a spiritual component to consider that is not answered by Takeda's involvement at all.
But the replies; to include such wildely and widely disparate views from Ueshiba as a self made and self taught man, to the schools governed by -even though not directly involved with the Butokukai being considered "a bunch of bitchy little Heathers who couldn't play nicely with others, or each other, so it was best to give them their own little padded room." Some seventy years in the future for the sake of a debate on the internet are so polarizing as to be discounted from the start.
Fred.
While I for one certainly appreciate the humor, and the prequisite semblance of acedemic impartiality to a subject matter; I found it all the more fascinating juxtaposed to the commentary found in the link you offered, with its reference to another organization, the Aikikai. Your link came up with a view of the Aikikai as a rather ugly political machine. The author observed the aikikai as:
....motivated by money and political power.
.... I find it sad that many of those who propose to teach others about respect, self-control, integrity and humility still seek political power themselves and adamantly vie for status, with little or no thought to the price paid by the art.
These organizations (Aikikai Foundation) were important when I ran a commercial dojo. They are supposed to be about legitimacy, but they're too worried about making money. Let me put it this way, an organization as big as Aikikai, how many people can they personally mentor, who's there at the Aikikai? Yet they have hundreds of thousands of members. Why are these people members, they're not members because they get excellent instruction from Aikikai, their instructor may be Aikikai, but they don't get their instruction from Aikikai. The reason they're members is because it legitimizes their rank, which has become more important than the student-teacher relationship and the study of budo.
I think that view is overly harsh as well and is more of the same polarizing that get's us nowhere.

The butokukai in 1942
I made no claims, I asked about "what ifs" and if it were as I had heard or read somewhere about a catagory differentiating the art or arts. I wasn't sure. Your reply, while appreciated was heavily laden with its own conclusions and commentary you had advised against in your own post.
I'm sure with a mandate of organization building, involving Judo and Kendo teachers and Koryu, taking the national stage in war time Japan in 1942; that every one of the modern arts represented; Judo and Kendo, those teachers involved were the epitome of consummate Japanese gentlemen- who of course are known world wide for attaining a level of grace and calm when they reach a level of power:rolleyes: , and those "other guys" were are you have described. "a bunch of bitchy little Heathers who couldn't play nicely with others, or each other, so it was best to give them their own little padded room." Great comment by the way; although that comment seems consistent with the threads here by Peter and Ellis and others on their early experiences at hombu.
I thought it might be fun to explore other comments given by the men directly involved in the Butokukai at that time, about the formulation of the new category "… proposed the establishment of a new section to include arts for actual fighting based on jujutsu techniques." or the the appearence of Takeda at a Butokukai event where he was reported to have stormed the stage uninvited and said something about the arts being presented not being the true arts of Japan or some such thing and then tossing around a bunch of judoka, as was reported by Sugino to Stan. But all that would only prove to be a distraction and tangential to the discussion here.
I agree with your closing comment and its cautionary tone about romanticizing the past for expediency. I think demonizing or making heroes out of men always misses the mark. Were one to read "all" of the writings of Takeda's son-including his private in-house comments offered in rebuttal to the history offered by the aikikai in light of "all" of the written words spoken of his Dad's involvement in the printed media regarding his pivotal role in the modern public dissemination of aiki- another obvious aspect would emerge. Who offered a more balanced and self aware overview of the direct involvement without the need or desire to demonize of aggrandize for the sake of individuals or organizations.
Cheers
Dan

DH
06-07-2009, 09:08 AM
To me, talk of a conspiracy / cover-up suggests that someone, Kisshomaru Ueshiba, for example, actually knew all the time that his father's Daito-ryu training was really far, far more important than his connections with Omoto, but he deliberately chose to downplay or suppress the former, in order that people would (erroneously) believe that the latter was more important: in other words, systematic lying took place on a major scale.

I do not believe that such a serious moral lapse can be demonstrated, even from Stanley Pranin's research.

In your post, you mention Daito-ryu and Takeda as the major factor, rather than a major factor (which is what I myself believe). So I think you need to show more evidence than you have done so far.

Best wishes,

PAG
I think that really is the crux of the matter.

DR is unquestionably the source of Ueshibas power, particularly in light of his peers, under Takeda, demonstrating the same power which was rather singular in the day. He didn't have it before Takeda and it grew under him.
What he did after and whether he got any more physical power that was from outside of that source is speculation without support
The spiritual components are from his own search.

The conspiracy argument can be negated / explained by Kissomaru believing in what he said and what he was told. That makes it innocent. And others ran with it and romantisized things without evidence. There is an interview somewhere in Aikido Journal where he all but apologizes for diminishing the involvement of Takeda in the history, that could be explained by either intent or ignorance.
Another interview (again with Sato acting as a go between for Takeda) outlines a series of questions posed to Ueshiba in a letter from Takeda wherein he asks why Ueshiba was lying about him; about "a house" supposedly given to him, about the fees begin so large etc. Stan offered that Kissomaru had posession of series of letters that he will not divulge to the public.
Then again,Takeda was painted as a man almost without any redeeming qualities by the popular writers so....
Maybe there are no moral lapses on Kissomarus part and he was telling the story as he knew it- of a beloved dad.
So again inconclusive.
In the end I think Ellis covered it-they were trying to forward a new art, who cared?
Thats not a bad stand alone statement to cover the topic. Until you considered what was offered when it WAS brought up! A passing reference to what Ueshiba has studied for 23 years and gave him a power sword skills unquestionably unusual for the day.

Cheers
Dan

MM
06-07-2009, 11:29 AM
1. My version of Budo: The Teachings of the Founder of Aikido. First printing is 1991. My copy is fairly new.

Page 8 starts the chapter, The Life of Morihei Ueshiba. Page 9 devotes two sentences to Ueshiba meeting and training with Takeda. Page 10 and 11 deal mostly with Oomoto kyo and Ueshiba's spiritual development. Then, this part:


This led him little by little to break away from the conventions of Yagyu-ryu and Daito ryu jujutsu, and to develop his own original approach, using applied principles and technique together, to break down the barriers behind mind, spirit, and body. In 1922 this approach was formally named "aiki-bujutsu" but it became known to the general public as Ueshiba-ryu aiki-bujutsu.


No more is mentioned of Daito ryu or Takeda.

However, Ueshiba was issuing Daito ryu certificates until the mid 1930s. In fact, Tomiki didn't start studying with Ueshiba until 1926 and I believe he received a Daito ryu certificate from Ueshiba. Shirata started at the Kobukan in 1933.

MM
06-07-2009, 11:34 AM
Finally, since you are talking of cover-up and conspiracy about how critical Daito-ryu was to aikido, I think you need to consider another possible cover-up, which concerns Morihei Ueshiba's obsession with deities, kotodama, and establishing the correct harmony between the 'three worlds'. This is why I believe you need to read the English translation of Kisshomaru Ueshiba's biography very carefully indeed. Kisshomaru's biography is much more subtle than that of John Stevens (in either edition).

As always, best wishes,

PAG

For this part of my thread, I was dealing only with the martial background of Ueshiba. I haven't touched upon the spiritual background and I would not be surprised to find a similar changing of "history".

MM
06-07-2009, 11:43 AM
Hello Mark,

Yes, I am aware of this. However, I think that suggestions of a cover-up and conspiracy become much harder to demonstrate.

To me, talk of a conspiracy / cover-up suggests that someone, Kisshomaru Ueshiba, for example, actually knew all the time that his father's Daito-ryu training was really far, far more important than his connections with Omoto, but he deliberately chose to downplay or suppress the former, in order that people would (erroneously) believe that the latter was more important: in other words, systematic lying took place on a major scale.

I do not believe that such a serious moral lapse can be demonstrated, even from Stanley Pranin's research.

In your post, you mention Daito-ryu and Takeda as the major factor, rather than a major factor (which is what I myself believe). So I think you need to show more evidence than you have done so far.

Best wishes,

PAG

I agree that a deliberate cover up by one or two individuals is hard to demonstrate. In fact, I'm not at all sure why there was a "changing", a "slant", or a "cover up" to the martial history of Ueshiba.

When Kisshomaru took over, it was definitely a struggling, hard time in the post WWII aftermath. I wouldn't be surprised to see anyone overplay the spiritual aspects of Aikido in that time.

But, something happened. Events were changed. Published books up to the early 90s dealing with Takeda and Daito ryu either majorly downplayed, lied, or slanted the truth to the point that Daito ryu was just one minor martial art of many that Ueshiba studied. We now know that Daito ryu was the main martial influence on Ueshiba.

Discounting the spiritual side, can you elaborate on why you believe Takeda and Daito ryu are only a major factor? Was there another martial art that was a major factor in Ueshiba's training?

Mike Sigman
06-07-2009, 11:45 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to respond to Ellis' points in post #13. Takeda got his stuff somewhere, but I don't see any great worry about that aspect.

Another thing I'd point out is that the topic of these skills in the West is pretty new and people are sometimes a little quick in thinking that their newly-found understandings represent all there is to know. The assumption seems to be that Takeda was the only available source of these kinds of skills, yet all the koryu 'secret' practice methods I see, Kendo, Iaido (caveat: I mean *when* these arts are done at a high level), and so on all had different aspects of these skills. Look at Kuroda's present-day stuff.. that didn't come via Takeda.

There's more than just the basic jin/kokyu skills. There are areas of these trainings that we have no indication whether or what Takeda knew, although we have written indications that some of the Misogi training from different groups *did* provide these skills. So the totality of Ueshiba's skills is still a question that is and probably always will be unknown to some degree.

Frankly, when I came into Aikido in the 70's, I was aware that Ueshiba got some of his stuff from Daito Ryu. Big deal.... everyone gets his stuff somewhere, as did Takeda. I still fail to see why there is this constant importance to some people that Takeda be mentioned whenever Ueshiba's name is mentioned. What's the importance?

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
06-07-2009, 11:53 AM
Discounting the spiritual side, can you elaborate on why you believe Takeda and Daito ryu are only a major factor? Was there another martial art that was a major factor in Ueshiba's training?I'm not Peter, but I'll throw in my 2 cents on this particular question. There is another major factor that has to do with how things are trained and it's equally critical. In fact, if you'll think back to some of my posts in the last year or so, you'll see that I've cautioned several times about how things are trained in Aikido and how not all training methods are the same... that has to do with some of the training which I would suggest would more probably have come from some relationship within Omoto-kyo. I see some interesting "aiki" in what Horikawa does/did, but I also see somethings that appear to me to be quite different from what Ueshiba did. It may not be apparent to someone without a lot of experience, though. The point, though, is that there are differences and if there are differences, discussions about "a major factor" and "the major factor" are pretty relevant.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Dan Rubin
06-07-2009, 11:59 AM
Oops! Dan can you post what section heading or location those quotes are in and I'll check my editions and see if I need to amend what I posted. Maybe there is mention of Daito Ryu in the books I posted and I missed it. I'd hate to inadvertently give false info.

Thanks,
Allen

I apologize. I should have included that information:

1961 (revised edition) Tohei "Aikido, The Arts of Self-Defense":
"He practiced almost all the existing martial arts, beginning with Kito-ryu Jujutsu, Yagyu-ryu, Aioi-ryu Hozoin-ryu and finally Daito-ryu." "Chapter III, Professor Morihei Uyeshiba", page 51.

1962 Tohei "What is Aikido?":
"He practiced almost all the existing martial arts, beginning with Kito-ryu Jujitsu, Yagyu-ryu, Aioi-ryu, Hozoin-ryu and finally Daito-ryu." "Professor Morihei Uyeshiba", page 100.

1968 Tohei "This is Aikido":
"He first trained in the Kito school of jujutsu and later went on to study Yagyu, Aioi, Hozoin, and finally Daito jujutsu." "Chapter I Fundamentals, section 7 Morihei Ueshiba, the Founder of Aikido", page 17.

Demetrio Cereijo
06-07-2009, 12:18 PM
FWIW:

Here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/7187913/01-Rare-Aikido-Morihei-Ueshiba-Tadashi-Abe-1958) is the late fifties Tadashi Abe - Jean Zin book previously mentioned.

On the other hand, I haven't found references to Takeda/Daito-ryu in Mochizuki Minoru - Jim Alcheik book "Ma Mêthode d'Aikido Jiu Jitsu" (http://www.scribd.com/doc/6291206/Aikido-Yoseikan-M-Mochizuki-Minoru-In-French-en-Francais) from the same era.

MM
06-07-2009, 12:28 PM
The assumption seems to be that Takeda was the only available source of these kinds of skills, yet all the koryu 'secret' practice methods I see, Kendo, Iaido (caveat: I mean *when* these arts are done at a high level), and so on all had different aspects of these skills. Look at Kuroda's present-day stuff.. that didn't come via Takeda.


No assumption, Mike. I'm not talking about Takeda being the only source at all. I'm talking about Ueshiba's training and how it was painted in the early days of Aikido, especially here in the US. I really don't care, at this point, about other sources. Ueshiba had only one - Takeda.


Frankly, when I came into Aikido in the 70's, I was aware that Ueshiba got some of his stuff from Daito Ryu. Big deal.... everyone gets his stuff somewhere, as did Takeda. I still fail to see why there is this constant importance to some people that Takeda be mentioned whenever Ueshiba's name is mentioned. What's the importance?

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Well, you just detailed the importance. As you just posted, "I was aware" and "got some". That's wrong. Ueshiba's major, main, the only martial influence in his skills was Daito ryu.

The importance is relevant in today's changing environment, which I'll get to below. In the early stages of Aikido, it was printed that Ueshiba studied many forms of martial arts, that Ueshiba was a self made man, etc, etc, but the truth is that Daito ryu was the main martial influence on Ueshiba. Most of us know that now. Not many did back then. But we know that Ueshiba's Daito ryu changed, was altered, whatever (again, I am NOT saying this is a bad thing. I think it was profound and a good thing) and he trimmed, or changed, the Daito ryu syllabus on his way to creating Aikido. Most people acknowledge this, too.

And now, in our current round of "changing" history, people are slowly beginning to realize that Daito ryu "aiki" was the underlying power behind Takeda and Ueshiba.

Just because people and books state one thing about "history" (as we can see from most of the English version books of early Aikido) doesn't mean that it's right. As most of the early English Aikido books got it wrong, so, too, do most of the current thoughts about the true power behind aikido have it wrong.

MM
06-07-2009, 12:30 PM
FWIW:

Here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/7187913/01-Rare-Aikido-Morihei-Ueshiba-Tadashi-Abe-1958) is the late fifties Tadashi Abe - Jean Zin book previously mentioned.

On the other hand, I haven't found references to Takeda/Daito-ryu in Mochizuki Minoru - Jim Alcheik book "Ma Mêthode d'Aikido Jiu Jitsu" (http://www.scribd.com/doc/6291206/Aikido-Yoseikan-M-Mochizuki-Minoru-In-French-en-Francais) from the same era.

Not just references. Most books referenced Daito ryu. But, how did the book portray Daito ryu in relation to Ueshiba's training and abilities? Was Daito ryu merely one of many that Ueshiba studied? Was Ueshiba a self made man? Or does the book show that Daito ryu was the main influence on Ueshiba's martial skills?

Mike Sigman
06-07-2009, 12:38 PM
And now, in our current round of "changing" history, people are slowly beginning to realize that Daito ryu "aiki" was the underlying power behind Takeda and Ueshiba. Well, my suggestion is that as you and some others "understand power", you're mainly seeing what you call "aiki" power. There's more to it than that and there are even choices within that "aiki" power. Ueshiba almost certainly got part of what he understood from Takeda.

First of all, as I've said in the past, we don't really know for sure on just the "Aiki" part. Think of it like this: Tohei, it could be argued, got his "aiki" skill from Ueshiba, but since this is such recent history, we actually know that Tohei actually got his understanding *of what Ueshiba was doing* from Tempu Nakamura and what Tohei was able configure himself. As I see it, you'd argue that everything Tohei got he got from Ueshiba, but in reality it's a lot more complex than that.

Secondly, there's another part to this that I feel very sure you're not taking into account because if you did, you'd acknowledge the problem. But take my word for it that there is an additional complexity that's pretty important and our "current round of changing history", as you put it, isn't over yet. I.e., I think all this worry about Takeda getting his due is not only a little over the top, it's also premature. I would advise patience.

FWIW

Mike

Allen Beebe
06-07-2009, 12:39 PM
I apologize. I should have included that information:

1961 (revised edition) Tohei "Aikido, The Arts of Self-Defense":
"He practiced almost all the existing martial arts, beginning with Kito-ryu Jujutsu, Yagyu-ryu, Aioi-ryu Hozoin-ryu and finally Daito-ryu." "Chapter III, Professor Morihei Uyeshiba", page 51.

1962 Tohei "What is Aikido?":
"He practiced almost all the existing martial arts, beginning with Kito-ryu Jujitsu, Yagyu-ryu, Aioi-ryu, Hozoin-ryu and finally Daito-ryu." "Professor Morihei Uyeshiba", page 100.

1968 Tohei "This is Aikido":
"He first trained in the Kito school of jujutsu and later went on to study Yagyu, Aioi, Hozoin, and finally Daito jujutsu." "Chapter I Fundamentals, section 7 Morihei Ueshiba, the Founder of Aikido", page 17.

OK, not that this is necessarily related to the thread anymore, but I hate to have printed misinformation:

DOES mention Daito Ryu in some capacity:
1961 (revised edition) Tohei "Aikido, The Arts of Self-Defense"
1962 Tohei "What is Aikido?"
1975 (revised) "This is Aikido" [Preface p.5]
BTW Daito Ryu is mentioned in juxtaposition to Aikido in Saito Sensei's origianl series in the last book of the series. It may be mentioned in elsewhere but I just gave a cursory look, found it mentioned and stopped looking.

So, once again, I doubt this influences the present discussion one way or another. Still, it is best to keep the facts straight. Thanks Dan for checking and correcting!

Allen

Demetrio Cereijo
06-07-2009, 01:10 PM
Not just references. Most books referenced Daito ryu. But, how did the book portray Daito ryu in relation to Ueshiba's training and abilities? Was Daito ryu merely one of many that Ueshiba studied? Was Ueshiba a self made man? Or does the book show that Daito ryu was the main influence on Ueshiba's martial skills?

My French is poor but I'd say Daito ryu is portraited as a very influential art in the developement of Ueshiba's Aikido in the book I linked.

Go to pg. 5 (pg. 10 of the book).

MM
06-07-2009, 03:17 PM
Well, my suggestion is that as you and some others "understand power", you're mainly seeing what you call "aiki" power. There's more to it than that and there are even choices within that "aiki" power. Ueshiba almost certainly got part of what he understood from Takeda.


"Aiki" is another thread. I really am trying to stay away from that subject. I'm sure there's quite a bit in there to talk about. I'd rather not drag it into this thread.


First of all, as I've said in the past, we don't really know for sure on just the "Aiki" part. Think of it like this: Tohei, it could be argued, got his "aiki" skill from Ueshiba, but since this is such recent history, we actually know that Tohei actually got his understanding *of what Ueshiba was doing* from Tempu Nakamura and what Tohei was able configure himself. As I see it, you'd argue that everything Tohei got he got from Ueshiba, but in reality it's a lot more complex than that.


Actually, I think it would be hard to argue that Tohei got his skills from Ueshiba. And, no, I wouldn't argue that he got everything from Ueshiba. In fact, I'd argue the opposite, that Tohei got most of his skills from elsewhere and possibly some skills from Ueshiba.


Secondly, there's another part to this that I feel very sure you're not taking into account because if you did, you'd acknowledge the problem. But take my word for it that there is an additional complexity that's pretty important and our "current round of changing history", as you put it, isn't over yet. I.e., I think all this worry about Takeda getting his due is not only a little over the top, it's also premature. I would advise patience.

FWIW

Mike

You're completely missing all the points I've posted. I've tried to stay away from "aiki" and I've posted actual facts in regards to printed material from the 1980s that doesn't deal with "aiki" at all, but with Ueshiba's martial training history.

I don't care about "Takeda getting his due". That's something that you seem to have picked up somewhere and keep interjecting it into threads. Dunno, Mike. This thread isn't about Takeda getting his due, it's about the main martial training of Ueshiba, how the books had it wrong, and how it's possible that there was a cover-up.

Now, as per Peter and Ellis, it's unlikely that there was a cover-up. Okay, I can look at it that way. But, then, it brings up the question of how did all those books get the information that wrong? We're not just talking little things here, but complete misinformation at times.

What happened that the facts were skewed to make Ueshiba's training history seem like either he studied a multitude of martial arts or he was a self taught genius?

Mike Sigman
06-07-2009, 03:29 PM
Now, as per Peter and Ellis, it's unlikely that there was a cover-up. Okay, I can look at it that way. But, then, it brings up the question of how did all those books get the information that wrong? We're not just talking little things here, but complete misinformation at times.

What happened that the facts were skewed to make Ueshiba's training history seem like either he studied a multitude of martial arts or he was a self taught genius?Well, back to Ellis' post at #13. If you read the stuff about Takeda he was a self-taught genius, too, according to his followers/sychophants. And they don't really go out of their way to mention that Takeda got his stuff somewhere else, either.

What it boils down to is less of a conspiracy of any sort and really it's just the same type of adulation and admiration that you find in just about *every* martial art. In most cases, if you examine the records pretty closely, the Big Cheese of any martial style sort of becomes more human. In the case of Ueshiba, there seems to be a concerted and recurring effort to deflate his image... which to me is OK, but I don't see the point in bringing it up, time after time. It's just a puzzling thing to do.

FWIW

Mike

DH
06-07-2009, 03:44 PM
Well, back to Ellis' post at #13. If you read the stuff about Takeda he was a self-taught genius, too,
And acknolwedged as such

In the case of Ueshiba, there seems to be a concerted and recurring effort to deflate his image... which to me is OK, but I don't see the point in bringing it up, time after time. It's just a puzzling thing to do.

FWIW

Mike
He has only been lifted and discussed for his power and abilities by Mark.

You can keep saying it over and over but your lacking citation and proof. Marks many positve contributions about Ueshiba contradict your words at every turn.
Care to cite________________

Dan

Demetrio Cereijo
06-07-2009, 06:06 PM
There is also mention of Ueshiba training under Takeda in Black Belt magazine: Feb 1963 (http://books.google.com/books?id=LNkDAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=es&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0_0#PPA1,M1), pgs 46-47

MM
06-07-2009, 06:36 PM
There is also mention of Ueshiba training under Takeda in Black Belt magazine: Feb 1963 (http://books.google.com/books?id=LNkDAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=es&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0_0#PPA1,M1), pgs 46-47

Yes, and it mentions that he spent 5 years training and received a certificate of mastery. And it does it without really degrading anyone. Noteworthy is that they state that during those 5 years of training, 90% of the training was done alone.

On page 66, it also mentions that Ueshiba dedicated his life to religion for 6 years, from 1919 to 1925. But no mention of training with Takeda throughout that time, or teaching Daito ryu.

Overall, though, I think the writer did a better job of trying to remain neutral than the books I've cited.

Demetrio Cereijo
06-07-2009, 06:45 PM
Well, Aiki requires an enormous amount of solo training, isn't it? :)

BTW, I think the writer could have been Tohei K.

Keith Larman
06-07-2009, 10:53 PM
I'm not nearly as "connected" as many in this thread, but it strikes me that most of the accounts we have in English were never written to be all-inclusive histories. Rather the parts written on the training history of Ueshiba Mirohei were relatively superficial as they were somewhat secondary to the larger purpose of most of those works. There was a lot to talk about and these things were not intended to be scholarly biographies.

So we read them as snapshots in time and we cannot ignore the larger purposes of most of those books -- and the larger purposes usually didn't include listing the qualifications and training records of O-Sensei.

This is always an issue when you're talking about recent or contemporary history. Most around someone like O-Sensei likely had a great deal of "common knowledge" that was assumed. When you do research there are often times when you ask a pointed question that you think is "controversial" or "outside the box" and the person just looks at you and say "yup" without even a hint of surprise or controversy. Kind of the "well, duh" reaction. Those sorts of things don't get discussed much because there is simply no need to. So that sort of stuff doesn't always get communicated or discussed. And considering we're really talking about a 40-50 year stretch of time with few people who were along for the entire ride you're going to see different versions of the man's history.

Now move a few generations away from the "source" and that common knowledge becomes less common. Misconceptions arise and history is in a sense lost. A new mythology of sorts arises. But beware of going too far the other way -- assuming that the loss of information was somehow intentional hiding of relevant stuff. Or even being examples of hero worship or whatever. It is simply what happens with all traditions and histories.

I remember many years ago talking with a guy who studied daito ryu who quietly told me that he had this radical theory that Aikido had evolved from Daito Ryu and wasn't really some divinely inspired magical art that had sprung complete from the spirit of O-Sensei. He was surprised that my reaction wasn't one of righteous indignation. My response was "Well, yeah, of course. It didn't appear out of nowhere, but he did put his own imprint on it." Seemed like a no-brainer thing to me.

How much credit you want to give O-Sensei for what he did with what he learned from Takeda (and elsewhere) is an interesting discussion, but I seriously doubt any of the first generation of students had any misconception that what they were studying had at the very least been greatly influenced by what Ueshiba had learned in his time with Takeda.

To me it is like my other passion -- Nihonto. There are many ways to look at the history of the Japanese sword in terms of the smiths. There were "lines" of smiths. There were sword making periods. There were regional variations. There were variations that were a result of the swordsmanship schools that were local (Satsuma for instance). We tend to talk about the 5 major schools of the "old school" in Koto times but that is very general. So it all depends on how closely you look and for what purpose you're looking. There was cross pollination. There was copying of good ideas (which is what you should do, right?). We insist on putting things in little boxes to classify them but often the world is just not quite so cut and dried. So you'd have guys working in some tradition doing really good work. But every now and then someone comes along that takes things in a new direction. They don't appear out of nowhere doing things never seen before. You see the reflections of their teachers in their work. But you also see a new flash of genius or insight. You still see the past within their swords. But they make some changes, some shifts, and eventually a new bifurcation is recognized. So in other words every now and then someone comes along and for whatever reason they create what we consider (and classify as) a new tradition. Not everyone may agree. And it often takes the passage of time for those things to become more clear. Sometimes it is more hype than substance. And sometimes those with the substance are quiet in their lifetimes and it takes a long time for their true contribution to become obvious.

We're now far enough removed from the time of O-sensei to need to look more deeply to better evaluate his place in the bigger picture. And work by guys like Stan Pranin, Dr. Goldsbury, Ellis Amdur, et al is critical in putting it into some sort of perspective. Some will still see Aikido as nothing more than watered down and fluffied up Daito Ryu with silly philosophy attached with duct tape. Others will see it as a complete transformation of a tradition into a new, transcendent thing. Me, well, I see it as something in between.

But hey, what do I know?

I'm sure some felt that what they saw O-Sensei do was revolutionary and came from another world. They may dismiss the daito ryu influence as a major part of the thing he "created" due to the shift they perceive in where he took it. Others may not agree with such a strong case. But regardless, O-sensei was clearly influenced on that road by Daito Ryu (obviously).

Okay, sorry, I'm probably way out of line given my lack of standing and authority. So that's just my take on it as a guy who spent a lot of years doing research and who truly appreciates those who were there, those who ask the questions, etc. Heck, even this discussion is good. But we should be listening closely to those who were around when they seem to have an almost visceral reaction to the use of the word conspiracy.

Back to huddling in the corner for me...

Chuck Clark
06-07-2009, 11:20 PM
Good post Keith. Thanks.

Best regards,

Ellis Amdur
06-08-2009, 12:33 AM
Gather round, boys and girls, it's a warm night and my belly is full of oysters and lobster and good red wine, and I'll tell you a tale: The true story of why the Butokukai (BTK) made a new section called Aikido. The BTK's function was to function as part of the overwhelming fascism (not a pejorative, a description) in which the state was the main organizing and controlling principal of society. Martial sports/modern budo allowed people all over Japan to practice the same art - without factional rivalries and/or an inability to compete due to different rules. Naginata, for example, lagged behind this trend, and different ryu were taught in different schools until the Mombusho kata were created, largely under the influence of Tendo-ryu and Jikishin Kage-ryu, and imposed on all school curriculum.
Kenjutsu schools, for the most part, continued to subsume themselves in kendo - and those that did not were provincial schools indeed. At the same time, there were no illusions - the only competitive outlet was kendo - it was unlikely indeed that kenjutsu ryu would come into physical conflict in the modern era outside of their representatives entering kendo tournaments.
Judo seemed to have the grappling side of things covered - along with sumo, of course. But there were still a number of jujutsu schools with very large enrollments. . And despite participating in judo tournaments, they did not extinguish themselves, as might have been hoped, and maintained themselves as separate ryu, with separate kata. On the one hand, this was kind of cool, but it was a divisive energy within martial arts societies.
The next problem, however, was the Heather issue. Entitled backbiting bitchiness is not confined to the aiki world, though it is endemic there: misrepresentation of history, denial by teachers that they ever taught a student, or denial by students that they owed a debt to a teacher, gossip as a way of life - this seems to be a criteria within the aiki world. But Heather Ishiki ("consciousness") is rife in the koryu world. Basically, as soon as these arts BECAME koryu, the bitchiness started. I'm talking Japan, here, the homeland! It was exemplified when a rather notorious individual of my acquaintance appeared at a funeral, and two prominent Heathers - I mean koryu teachers, the heads of their respective ryu, blanched, and one said, "Who invited him!!!!" And the other said, "I don't know. I don't know!" And I said, "Oh, I did.:) "
Let us contrast the koryu world to that of genuine men-at-arms (albeit this can include practitioners of koryu). Recently, I went to dinner with three guys I didn't know that well, after training in combative stuff together - the best way to put it is we didn't know each other well enough to joke around: all three were not only hugely credentialed as fighters - they WERE fighters. All were scary good. So the four of us were talking and the subject of religion, Darwin, and a variety of such topics arose, and we, around the table had quite divergent opinions. But it was a very polite conversation, among the most enjoyably polite debates I've participated in a long time. We all knew that each of us could cause any of the others painful regrets if offended, and thus, despite strong differences of opinion, we treated each other with courtesy.
Before koryu was koryu, that was surely the norm. But once it became an antique in which people were proud of the fighters who USED to be in the ryu, or of the kata, the history, lineage,etc., then all sorts of arguments arose as to who was legit, whose line was more mainline, etc. Clear? Koryu in the 20th century already had a lot of wankers, of which Daito Fighto Almighto Always Righto & Aikido-bunnies & Bliss-ninnies are merely variant new developments.
OK, so the Butokukai wanted a new section for the jujutsu guys. But here's the problem - what to call it? Koshi no mawari, kogusoku, torite, habaku, kempo, jujutsu, yawara???? Had they chosen any one of those, 3/4 of the other schools who didn't have that name would throw hissy fits and quit - or, the more red-blooded might say to the "victor" - "So I'm supposed to be in the Yawara section? OK, Mr. Yawara man, show me what you can do against a Torite man!" Quelle Horror! Conflict among martial artists. How could this be? What to do?
Now, among the Heathers was Daito-ryu, a most obscure ryu, exemplified by an itinerant instructor who came and went, sort of an unpredictible Oscar the Grouch, with the ability to hit you upside the head with his garbage can lid any time he chose. And another - one never knew what to call it - Daito-ryu/Aioi-ryu/Aikibudo/Ueshiba-ryu - every six months a new name-ryu - associated with a traitorous religious sect. These two teachers, although prominent, were just two among many. And compared to, for example, the prestigue of Takenouchi-ryu's headmaster(s), not that important either. They were New - and in Japan, Old is king.
Well, it's a guarantee they wouldn''t call their new section the Daito-ryu section - or any other ryu name. And they aren't going to call it the aikijutsu or aikijujutsu ryu, even if they knew such names, because that was the trademark of aforementioned Oscar the Grouch, and if they called it by "his" appellation, that would be charming, wouldn't it? He would have license to drop by every school, and either humiliate them all, now with gov't sanction, or someone would take him out - or try to, anyway. And there was no way that they would call it aikibudo, because Ueshiba's stuff was not representative of any of the other schools, and that would be a politically unfortunate move - to subsume all the jujutsu schools in a box labeled with the appellation of the newest kid on the block.
So, this terrible dilemma!!!!!! And here appears Hirai Minoru, a bright young man, licensed with menkyo in Togun-ryu (Tradition!!!!!), the creator of his own modern school (Kogado, later called Korindo), and associated with the more eccentric wing of jujutsu through Ueshiba. And he proposes an idea - let's call it something that NOBODY owns. It'll have "do" on the end of it - kendo, judo, naginata-do, iaido, etc. And, by implication, at least, it hightlights something unique that is allegedly, in one form or another, in jujutsu - a less material, more spiritual, intangible thing - which is NOT judo. Aikido!!!!!!!!!
And the powers that be said, "Eureka! We have a name!"
So it was not a section for aikidobunnies and Daito-ryu happy crampers, neither as a special area or a ghetto. It was the grab-bag area to place all jujutsu that was not judo - with a name that, if it meant little to most, wasn't offensive to any. So it wasn't about Ueshiba and Takeda at all. It was simply politics.

Best
Ellis Amdur

jss
06-08-2009, 03:06 AM
But, then, it brings up the question of how did all those books get the information that wrong? We're not just talking little things here, but complete misinformation at times.
Poor research, because of lack of effort, lack of resources, lack of access to the right sources, etc.

Erick Mead
06-08-2009, 07:50 AM
Poor research, because of lack of effort, lack of resources, lack of access to the right sources, etc. That and Sturgeon's law : 90% of everything is crap. -- And the Hofwitz Writer's Corollary -- Every leaves out 90% of what he really needed to say; of what he DID say 90% need not have been said, and 90% of that is in some form of serious error or critical omission.

So, of the non-crap history (10%) that somebody actually remembered was important (0.1%), and managed to fit in edgewise in his turgid prose, (0.001%) and was not in serious error (0.00001%): information quotient is about 1/100,000th of what was available.

Oh, and 90 % of what there ever was originally is irretrievably lost - So -- one in a million, baby!

Anyone looking for the well had best forget the bucket, and never mind the spoon -- get the sponge ...

DH
06-08-2009, 08:12 AM
Ellis
No lobster for me, but a nice coffee break.
Thanks for a more detailed answer to that nagging classification issue. It was another of those things yet to be more defined. Can we take it to the bank or is it based on some speculation was well.
I mean, do I get the the bucket, spoon, or sponge-or forget about it and just go read a book...wait..then I'm back to more trouble. I guess the Tee Vee will have to do. I'll watch fact based media-the news!

Hey, here's a thought. You have a way. with words; witty, acerbic, jaded with cause, and informative as well. If you have a strong enough stomach, YOU should consider writing a book about this stuff!!

Great wrap up too.
So how about them Nicks...?
Anyone see the new Star Trek?
Dan

MM
06-08-2009, 08:52 AM
Thanks to all who posted. While I still have questions (who doesn't), I learned quite a bit.

Nicks? Is that like the Boston baseball team or something? ;)

Star Trek was awesome! :)

Mark

Amir Krause
06-08-2009, 09:20 AM
Gather round, boys and girls, it's a warm night and my belly is full of oysters and lobster and good red wine, and I'll tell you a tale: The true story of why the Butokukai (BTK) made a new section called Aikido. The BTK's function was to function as part of the overwhelming fascism (not a pejorative, a description) in which the state was the main organizing and controlling principal of society. Martial sports/modern budo allowed people all over Japan to practice the same art - without factional rivalries and/or an inability to compete due to different rules. Naginata, for example, lagged behind this trend, and different ryu were taught in different schools until the Mombusho kata were created, largely under the influence of Tendo-ryu and Jikishin Kage-ryu, and imposed on all school curriculum.
Kenjutsu schools, for the most part, continued to subsume themselves in kendo - and those that did not were provincial schools indeed. At the same time, there were no illusions - the only competitive outlet was kendo - it was unlikely indeed that kenjutsu ryu would come into physical conflict in the modern era outside of their representatives entering kendo tournaments.
Judo seemed to have the grappling side of things covered - along with sumo, of course. But there were still a number of jujutsu schools with very large enrollments. . And despite participating in judo tournaments, they did not extinguish themselves, as might have been hoped, and maintained themselves as separate ryu, with separate kata. On the one hand, this was kind of cool, but it was a divisive energy within martial arts societies.
The next problem, however, was the Heather issue. Entitled backbiting bitchiness is not confined to the aiki world, though it is endemic there: misrepresentation of history, denial by teachers that they ever taught a student, or denial by students that they owed a debt to a teacher, gossip as a way of life - this seems to be a criteria within the aiki world. But Heather Ishiki ("consciousness") is rife in the koryu world. Basically, as soon as these arts BECAME koryu, the bitchiness started. I'm talking Japan, here, the homeland! It was exemplified when a rather notorious individual of my acquaintance appeared at a funeral, and two prominent Heathers - I mean koryu teachers, the heads of their respective ryu, blanched, and one said, "Who invited him!!!!" And the other said, "I don't know. I don't know!" And I said, "Oh, I did.:) "
Let us contrast the koryu world to that of genuine men-at-arms (albeit this can include practitioners of koryu). Recently, I went to dinner with three guys I didn't know that well, after training in combative stuff together - the best way to put it is we didn't know each other well enough to joke around: all three were not only hugely credentialed as fighters - they WERE fighters. All were scary good. So the four of us were talking and the subject of religion, Darwin, and a variety of such topics arose, and we, around the table had quite divergent opinions. But it was a very polite conversation, among the most enjoyably polite debates I've participated in a long time. We all knew that each of us could cause any of the others painful regrets if offended, and thus, despite strong differences of opinion, we treated each other with courtesy.
Before koryu was koryu, that was surely the norm. But once it became an antique in which people were proud of the fighters who USED to be in the ryu, or of the kata, the history, lineage,etc., then all sorts of arguments arose as to who was legit, whose line was more mainline, etc. Clear? Koryu in the 20th century already had a lot of wankers, of which Daito Fighto Almighto Always Righto & Aikido-bunnies & Bliss-ninnies are merely variant new developments.
OK, so the Butokukai wanted a new section for the jujutsu guys. But here's the problem - what to call it? Koshi no mawari, kogusoku, torite, habaku, kempo, jujutsu, yawara???? Had they chosen any one of those, 3/4 of the other schools who didn't have that name would throw hissy fits and quit - or, the more red-blooded might say to the "victor" - "So I'm supposed to be in the Yawara section? OK, Mr. Yawara man, show me what you can do against a Torite man!" Quelle Horror! Conflict among martial artists. How could this be? What to do?
Now, among the Heathers was Daito-ryu, a most obscure ryu, exemplified by an itinerant instructor who came and went, sort of an unpredictible Oscar the Grouch, with the ability to hit you upside the head with his garbage can lid any time he chose. And another - one never knew what to call it - Daito-ryu/Aioi-ryu/Aikibudo/Ueshiba-ryu - every six months a new name-ryu - associated with a traitorous religious sect. These two teachers, although prominent, were just two among many. And compared to, for example, the prestigue of Takenouchi-ryu's headmaster(s), not that important either. They were New - and in Japan, Old is king.
Well, it's a guarantee they wouldn''t call their new section the Daito-ryu section - or any other ryu name. And they aren't going to call it the aikijutsu or aikijujutsu ryu, even if they knew such names, because that was the trademark of aforementioned Oscar the Grouch, and if they called it by "his" appellation, that would be charming, wouldn't it? He would have license to drop by every school, and either humiliate them all, now with gov't sanction, or someone would take him out - or try to, anyway. And there was no way that they would call it aikibudo, because Ueshiba's stuff was not representative of any of the other schools, and that would be a politically unfortunate move - to subsume all the jujutsu schools in a box labeled with the appellation of the newest kid on the block.
So, this terrible dilemma!!!!!! And here appears Hirai Minoru, a bright young man, licensed with menkyo in Togun-ryu (Tradition!!!!!), the creator of his own modern school (Kogado, later called Korindo), and associated with the more eccentric wing of jujutsu through Ueshiba. And he proposes an idea - let's call it something that NOBODY owns. It'll have "do" on the end of it - kendo, judo, naginata-do, iaido, etc. And, by implication, at least, it hightlights something unique that is allegedly, in one form or another, in jujutsu - a less material, more spiritual, intangible thing - which is NOT judo. Aikido!!!!!!!!!
And the powers that be said, "Eureka! We have a name!"
So it was not a section for aikidobunnies and Daito-ryu happy crampers, neither as a special area or a ghetto. It was the grab-bag area to place all jujutsu that was not judo - with a name that, if it meant little to most, wasn't offensive to any. So it wasn't about Ueshiba and Takeda at all. It was simply politics.

Best
Ellis Amdur

:) :D

So far, being a Korindo person, I prefered to just read from the side-lines. Especially since my knowledge of history is realy minor compared to some of the writers here (especially PAG).

A few additions though:
1. The name Aikido was not suggested by Hirai Sensei, rather by Mr Tatsuo Hisatomi from the Kodokan. But, this does not negate Ellis general claim, read Hirai explanation on this:
"There was discussion within the Butokukai about the choice of a name for this new section. It was discussed many times in meetings of the Board of Directors, and particularly in the judo and kendo sections. We had to consider all of the different individual arts encompassed when we tried to come up with an all-inclusive name. It was decided to select an inoffensive name to avoid future friction among the different martial arts.
Mr. Hisatomi argued for his proposal energetically and explained that "aikido" would be a better name than aiki budo for this new section, because it would be better to stress the idea of "michi" or way. He proposed that the name "aikido" be used as term to designate an all-inclusive budo and I agreed with him." [Aikido Journal #100, "AN INTERVIEW WITH MINORU HIRAI " Stanly Pranin]
2. The history of Hirai Sensei indicates he was even better connected then implied in short here. In addition to the elements you mentioned, he learned Takenouchi-ryu , Kito-ryu, Saburi-ryu, And Okumura Nito-ryu. He also had connections in the imperial government, and was appreciated enough to be included in the DNBK organization.

I would also like to comment on the overall argument, about a cover-up, that this is a natural human progress. When a movement starts, it creates lots of enthusiasm, and keeps seeing itself as something entirely new and totally different from previous things. If that movement is successful, it will get to a period in which people will start looking in its past for older roots.
Ueshiba did not lie when writing of Omotokyu as THE major influence on him, this is HIS real view. IT does not matter that technically most of his Aikido is Daito-ryu, since from his point-of-view, he disassociated himself with Takeda and decided to follow his own way. And as he defined his own way according to the effect Omotokyu had on him.
In the early days, most Aikido people were satisfied with Ueshiba view on the issue, and did not care for the objective truth (according to many of you, almost full technical reliance).

Amir

Ron Tisdale
06-08-2009, 09:54 AM
The new Star Trek was good, and very enjoyable.

Much appreciation for the posts here!

Best,
Ron

Chuck Clark
06-08-2009, 10:07 AM
I, also,would like to have that book Ellis. Thanks... (Wish I could still eat lobster, oysters, etc.)

Fred Little
06-08-2009, 06:08 PM
A bunch of stuff
Best
Ellis Amdur

Dear Dan,

Don't you just hate it when he nails it like that? And you know, he really does think he's all that and a bag of chips, too.

Are we going to let him get away with that? Text me....

Hugs and kisses,

Heather

Charles Hill
06-08-2009, 06:47 PM
So, since Arikawa Sensei did not give permission for the interview to be published (yet),

Professor,

What are the conditions that Arikawa Sensei gave in order for the interview to be finally published?

Thank you,
Charles

Peter Goldsbury
06-08-2009, 06:52 PM
Professor,

What are the conditions that Arikawa Sensei gave in order for the interview to be finally published?

Thank you,
Charles

Charles,

He did not give any. He simply stated that it was "too early". (Of course, Stan taped the interview.)

DH
06-08-2009, 07:40 PM
Dear Dan,
Don't you just hate it when he nails it like that? And you know, he really does think he's all that and a bag of chips, too.
My Dearest Fred
No, he doesn't.
He's up to his eyeballs sick of it all. Damn fool has this notion that once the book is out he can walk away from it all....tic...toc...tic...toc!
As you well know from the content - I can only imagine the debates that are about to begin and the cries for the author to respond!!

I don't even know if I'll be here by then, with Ellis the book could be out in late summer or be out in the trash can next week due to frustration. I am actively weaning myself off the net, I'm.down to just two forums and getting less and less involved in those. I am glad to be on the other side of it all and looking to get out. I have a lot of hard work ahead of me with a group of teachers and students and the forums interest me less and less every day I read them.

Are we going to let him get away with that? Text me....
Hugs and kisses,
Heather
Oh he does enjoy it when he gets to be witty, pithy, sarcastic, cutting, dismissive and informative all in one fell swoop, dudn't he? Even more fun is seeing the gleam in his eyes and the smug look he gets on his face during the delivery!! :cool:
Glad I don't have to live with him...I think I'd kill him in his sleep!

Ask him to recite his Daito ryu poem about the stupefying diversity of the schools- I almost fell over laughing.
Text you? I wouldn't know where to begin. I delete text messages and tell clients and friends to knock it off. :p

Blowing kisses from across "the padded room."
Dan

Buck
06-08-2009, 11:40 PM
Gather round...it wasn't about Ueshiba and Takeda at all. It was simply politics.

Best
Ellis Amdur

The result of that fallen tree is, it will be largely ignored, and no one will question if it made a sound.

For some odd reason, I envision in my head a fictitious skit out of Monty Python's "Holy Grail" with Chapman and Cleese on horse back in full armor leisurely riding in the woods as they approach a falling tree that crashes next to them (as it falls says “ouch”- in a voice over of Terry Jones) Cleese heard it, but purposely ignoring it, as Chapman turns to Cleese and says, " Did you hear something?" and Cleese with his usual tone of insulting invalidation, and self-importance of denial says, What? I didn't hear anything? Chapman in a negating, and authoritative manner, "But I did hear something.” The tree moans a bit in discomfort. They stop, Chapman points, says, “that tree!" Cleese says, in a tone that is even more insulting, and degrading in his denial, "No you didn't." Champan, gravely offended and persist, says, "But I did!" Then the Tree responses to Chapman (in firm obnoxious of pitchy denial,) "You didn't here anything," Chapman, insists to Clesse the tree talks, Cleese argues it didn’t say a thing, trees don’t talk. Chapman argues back he did hear the tree talk. The tree deigns it. Chapmen offended insisting the tree talked. Cleese deigns it once again. Then Clesse calls Chapman a moron for arguing with a tree, he didn’t hear and doesn’t talk. The tree confirms Cleese. Chapmen shocked and insulted, stubbornly argues he isn’t hearing things, the tree did talk to him, as they ride away –fade out.

I don’t know how many people are going to listen.

Charles Hill
06-09-2009, 03:37 AM
Not long before he died, Stanley Pranin and I spent six hours interviewing Sadateru Arikawa Sensei, who, along with Shigenobu Okumura, was the prime 'historian' in the Aikikai. I drew up a list of questions for this interview: questions like what were the defining attributes of Aikido, in comparison with Daito-ryu; whether the Aikikai (= Kisshomaru Ueshiba) had 'doctored' the history of aikido. Arikawa Sensei sought the advice, not of the Aikikai, but of Katsuyuki Kondo, of Daito-ryu, who urged him to give the interview. He gave the interview, which Stan taped (with Arikawa Sensei's permission). Actually, Arikawa Sensei was Stan's 'protector' in the Aikikai Hombu and, believe me, I know what this means.

So, since Arikawa Sensei did not give permission for the interview to be published (yet), my own private response has been to complement Stan's researches by publishing the results of my own research. I was never in a position to conduct interviews and ask the questions that Stan did not ask, but I suspect that I have a deeper acquaintance with the crucial cultural aspects. The result is the series of AikIWeb columns.

I am a little surprised there has been no reaction to this. Maybe Dr. Goldsbury has mentioned this before and I am the only one not in the loop?

Doing a bit of reading between the lines (perhaps a lot), I am understanding that Arikawa Sensei revealed information in the interview that would possibly damaging to the Aikikai/Ueshiba family and pertained to the very topic of this thread, namely the influence of Daito Ryu on the Founder. And to extrapolate a bit further, the interview and its contents have still not been revealed by Stan Pranin, perhaps so as not to offend the Aikikai/Ueshiba family.

Am I hot or cold here?

Charles

dps
06-09-2009, 05:29 AM
For some odd reason, I envision in my head a fictitious skit out of Monty Python's "Holy Grail" with Chapman and Cleese on horse back in full armor leisurely riding in the woods

They were walking through the woods with a man clapping coconuts together to simulate hoof beats.

David

Buck
06-09-2009, 07:51 AM
For some odd reason, I envision in my head a fictitious skit out of Monty Python's "Holy Grail"

Then this pops into my head from the actual movie After the singing and dancing parody in the film. "On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place." That is when Ellis made reference to the "homeland" and "politics" stuff.

And it didn't stop there I searched on online for this, all building to the last line. It is so fitting to the "homeland" and "politics" way of things- all inspired by what I got from reading Ellis' post. :D :

Arthur: Old woman!
Dennis: Man.
Arthur: Man, sorry.
Dennis: I'm 37.
Arthur: What?
Dennis: I'm 37. I'm not old.
Arthur: I did apologize about the "old woman," but from behind you looked, well...
Dennis: What I object to is that you automatically treat me like an inferior.
Arthur: Well, I am king.
Dennis: Oh, king, eh? And how'd you get that? By exploiting the workers! By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur: I am your king!
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you!
Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Woman: Well how'd you become king then?
[Angelic music plays...]
Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering silmite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king!
Dennis interrupting: Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!

Erick Mead
06-09-2009, 08:04 AM
Dennis interrupting: Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!
Ah, yes.... Seems to me I recall that even BEFORE the "king" shows up all the "masses" are doing is mucking out the filth and arguing about the politics ...

The pretenses on both sides are equally skewered.

Nothing ever really changes, in other words ... ;)

Ron Tisdale
06-09-2009, 08:18 AM
The tree deigns it.

The tree did WHAT? ;)

Best,
Ron

deign  /deɪn/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [deyn] Show IPA
–verb (used without object) 1. to think fit or in accordance with one's dignity; condescend: He would not deign to discuss the matter with us.

–verb (used with object) 2. to condescend to give or grant: He deigned no reply.
3. Obsolete. to condescend to accept.

lezard39
06-12-2009, 10:54 AM
FWIW:

Here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/7187913/01-Rare-Aikido-Morihei-Ueshiba-Tadashi-Abe-1958) is the late fifties Tadashi Abe - Jean Zin book previously mentioned.

On the other hand, I haven't found references to Takeda/Daito-ryu in Mochizuki Minoru - Jim Alcheik book "Ma Mêthode d'Aikido Jiu Jitsu" (http://www.scribd.com/doc/6291206/Aikido-Yoseikan-M-Mochizuki-Minoru-In-French-en-Francais) from the same era.

Minoru Mochizuki talks about the roots of aikido at p.8 of his book.

"Aikido come from Kendo, the Daîto school took all the body movement of it and call the art Aiki-jutsu. Ten years ago (the book was written during 1956) Ueshiba add religious notions and flexibility to the art and change the name to Aikido."

lezard39
06-12-2009, 01:02 PM
FWIW:

Here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/7187913/01-Rare-Aikido-Morihei-Ueshiba-Tadashi-Abe-1958) is the late fifties Tadashi Abe - Jean Zin book previously mentioned.

On the other hand, I haven't found references to Takeda/Daito-ryu in Mochizuki Minoru - Jim Alcheik book "Ma Mêthode d'Aikido Jiu Jitsu" (http://www.scribd.com/doc/6291206/Aikido-Yoseikan-M-Mochizuki-Minoru-In-French-en-Francais) from the same era.

And here’s what Abe wrote about the roots of Aïkido in his book of1958 :

Back from Wakayama in 1915, Ueshiba began to teach a blending art of all martial arts he learned before, mostly base on Aïki-jitsu of Takeda Shi Han.

In 1930, Admiral Isamu Takeshita asked Ueshiba to teach to the officers of the military police and then call his art: Aiki-budo.

In 1938, Ueshiba left his rank of Shi-han from the imperial court and move from Tokyo to Iwama, then remove the word Jitsu and replace it by the “Do”, to form Aiki-do.

jxa127
06-19-2009, 08:57 AM
Let us contrast the koryu world to that of genuine men-at-arms (albeit this can include practitioners of koryu). Recently, I went to dinner with three guys I didn't know that well, after training in combative stuff together - the best way to put it is we didn't know each other well enough to joke around: all three were not only hugely credentialed as fighters - they WERE fighters. All were scary good. So the four of us were talking and the subject of religion, Darwin, and a variety of such topics arose, and we, around the table had quite divergent opinions. But it was a very polite conversation, among the most enjoyably polite debates I've participated in a long time. We all knew that each of us could cause any of the others painful regrets if offended, and thus, despite strong differences of opinion, we treated each other with courtesy.


My church council could learn a lot from those guys.


Before koryu was koryu, that was surely the norm. But once it became an antique in which people were proud of the fighters who USED to be in the ryu, or of the kata, the history, lineage,etc., then all sorts of arguments arose as to who was legit, whose line was more mainline, etc. Clear? Koryu in the 20th century already had a lot of wankers, of which Daito Fighto Almighto Always Righto & Aikido-bunnies & Bliss-ninnies are merely variant new developments.


So we're wannabes and has-beens at the same time! :)

Seriously, Ellis, thanks for the explanation. A lot of this reinforces Keith Larman's point that today's "hidden" information was rather prosaic and mundane stuff in contemporary times.

The new Star Trek was good, and very enjoyable.


Yup! My wife and I saw it twice.

Regards,