PDA

View Full Version : Daito Ryu and Aikido History


Please visit our sponsor:
 

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


akiy
11-12-2002, 11:18 AM
I know that these topics are quite well-debated over on the Aikido Journal (http://www.aikidojournal.com) website, but I thought I'd bring them up here...

How important (or not) is the study of Daito ryu aikijujutsu to you? How does it affect your everyday training?

How important (or not) is the study of the history of aikido to you? How does it affect your everyday training?

-- Jun

mike lee
11-12-2002, 11:42 AM
DR is of absolutely no importance to training in aikido whatsoever. If it was important, O'Sensei would have recommended it.

Nevertheless, there are those in the American DR community who remain bent on discrediting O'Sensei and the way that aikido is currently practiced.

There are a lot of variables in this issue, but the main point is as I have always said: Train diligently under an aikido shihan and gain a complete understanding of your art. :do:

Don't look for the quick and easy way.

Aikido is a great and noble art ó don't be confused by small-minded individuals with ill intentions and darkness in their hearts.

jk
11-12-2002, 09:47 PM
Mike,

Going through the Aikido Journal threads mentioned above, I didn't see evidence of anyone trying to discredit O-Sensei or the way aikido is currently practiced.

If you personally don't care about Daito ryu aikijujutsu, or aikido's history, that's fine. If you don't know Daito ryu aikijujutsu, or aikido's history, that's just great. The thing left to do is just practice your aikido, and within that context, keep on finding what you seem to be looking for.

Personally, I'd like a chance to study Daito ryu aikijujutsu, but at this point in my life, it's not that important (nor is it easily available). As for aikido's history, it's somewhat important to me, and I study it when time permits. For me, a little knowledge about whatever influenced O-sensei to create aikido can only help me better understand the purpose for which I train. Whatever works for you...

Regards,

MaylandL
11-12-2002, 10:09 PM
Hello Jun

I thought this might be of interest. It is a recent interview with Katsuyuki Kondo on Aikido Journal commenting on the differences and similarities between Aikido and Daito Ryu.

http://www.aikidojournal.com/new/article.asp?ArticleID=77

As for me, I would love to experience Daito Ryu but I think my wife would have a cow given I already train 4 times a week and visit the Gym.

All the best for training :)

Edward
11-12-2002, 10:27 PM
Knowing aikido history is a very interesting and exciting subject, but not necessary to the process of learning aikido.

As for DR, I have seen many videos and it looks very interesting as well, however, it seems that many of the contemporary DR techniques have been influenced by aikido and not the opposite as one would presume.

I personally believe that aikido as we know and learn it nowadays has been created and developed by the genius of 3 persons: Sokaku Takeda, Morihei Ueshiba and Kisshomaru Ueshiba. Even late footages of Osensei show great differences to our modern aikido. That's why I believe that even if we consider Osensei rightfully as the founder of aikido, we have to give credit to Sokaku Takeda for reviving an almost extinct martial art, and for Kisshomaru Ueshiba for giving aikido its modern form.

When I will have my own dojo one day, The shomen will feature the picture of Osensei in the centre, but also the pictures of the other 2 persons who played such a big role in the creation of aikido.

As for learning DR, I might be interested to participate to seminars occasionally, but learning aikido alone takes a lifetime, so I wouldn't want to complicate it further.

sanosuke
11-12-2002, 11:28 PM
it's hard to avoid that Daito Ryu is the main foundation of aikido, among all other martial arts that o-sensei learned. But if you want to master aikido i don't think you have to train in daito ryu also. Although some daito ryu techniques is similar to aikido, their philosophy is somewhat different. According to a daito ryu book I read (daito ryu aikijujutsu; hidden roots of aikido by Shiro Omiya), daito ryu philosophy is to subdue an opponent with less power and time, although it can bring heavy injury to the person, whereas aikido philoophy is also subduing an attack but emphasizing more on harmony (please correct me if i'm wrong, i haven't refer to that book for quite some time).

Dan Hover
11-12-2002, 11:58 PM
I guess I will be the odd one and say that History is important. Although unlike Modern day Daito ryu who feel the need to denounce O'sensei for watering down DTR and call it Aikido. The popular story of O'sensei spending 25 years training with Takeda is a stretch at best. Takeda was very meticulous with his attendence registers of everyone he had taught. O'sensei's name clearly appears on these scrolls, indicating that Yes Osensei did train with him. But for a total of 70 days, spread out over 7 ten day seminars. which in some ways does little to reinforce the perception that Osensei spent 25 years of study under Takeda. This is clearly not the case. True, without DTR we would not have Aikido, and without Aikido I don't really think that DTR would share in the popularity it has today. O sensei created Aikido from DTR amongst other arts that he trained in. Oddly enough you never hear Tenjin shinyo ryu practioners complaining how Kano Sensei ripped them off in creating Kodokan Judo. Likewise Ona ha itto ryu and Kendo. There is even speculation that Takeda himself is responsible for DTR as little is known about it until he entered the picture.

History whether it be Aikido history or national history is important as it gives us a sense of who we are, where we are going, and where we have came from. To be so blind to it, and just merely accept the road you are on is foolish at best, calamitous at worse. Most instructors who I have seen who do not like history are usually the ones who know the least about it. Much like a person who hates cats is usually allergic to them. Now today in Aiki history we are, as a collective, at a crossroads. First and foremost we are at the beginning of a 3rd generation Doshu. Second, Non Japanese are beginning to be recognized as Shihan. Third, more and more of O sensei's direct students are starting to pass on. With this loss of a direct link to Osensei, Myths can be promulagated to fact, and technique and his message can become lost, in favor of a more "american" approach to a culture that few really know about or really understand. Dojo secularism will rise which will encourage this view of lack of a sense of history. Look at Hombu dojo's view of K. Tohei for a classic more recent view of this "revisionism". Without history or following this road of exploration, we wouldn't have such texts like Budo for example. We wouldn't even know what Aikido really is without a way to solidly research pedigrees and claims.

Now in some sense a good knowledge of history will not improve my physical skills in Aikido, but it will give me a sense of how certain techniques were performed in 1936, 1956 and presently. Why they were changed, How they were changed and who changed them. Knowing history will give one a greater appreciation of the various styles of Aikido and where they fit in the "big picture" such as Tomiki, Yoshinkai, Shin-Shin toitsu ryu, and even where Judo fits into the Aikido picture. If one really wants to know an art, how can they truly deny the history of that art? Luckily Aikido is still recent enough that there are still living witnesses to give evidence to the past, and see the great strides we have made and hopefully will continue to make.

To me the difference between knowing history and not knowing history is like that of the difference between a square and a cube. One has depth.

Paul
11-13-2002, 05:45 AM
Personally the study of Daito ryu aikijujutsu is key to a proper understanding of aikido. History is great teacher therefore it would be hard to look to the future of aikido with a thorough understanding of its history, which Daito ryu aikijujutsu plays a main part.

I agree with Mr Hover when he wrote that knowledge of aikido history would not improve ones physical skills. I would add that it may clarify your skill by adding restrictions to certain movements. Knowledge of aikidoís history may help to answer ones questions on why certain techniques are performed in certain ways.

Armed with this knowledge will, I believe, enriches ones aikido and more importantly creates better instructors, which in turn improves aikido generally.

This summer I went along to Kondo senseiís dojo to watch a class and left with a number of questions on aikido answered and with the myth that Daito ryu aikijujutsu is a blood thirsty not happy unless uke is being destroyed system shattered. I would wager that any new student in your dojo would not be able to differentiate between an aikido class and one of Kondo senseiís classes.

We often make the mistake in thinking that Daito ryu aikijujutsu was not very important in the creation of aikido however as Stanley Pranin points out, http://www.aikiweb.com/interviews/pranin0800.html, Oísensei did not, as we often think, study in depth, and I think the word in depth is key here, many martial arts. So why today do we shy away from aikidoís obvious past in favour of a more rose coloured picture? Oísensei saw something in Takeda sensei and in his art that inspired him. Who are we to now ignore, like an embarrassing uncle, aikidoís past?

Edward
11-13-2002, 07:46 AM
I would wager that any new student in your dojo would not be able to differentiate between an aikido class and one of Kondo senseiís classes.
It is common knowledge now that DR has developed into something similar to aikido, probably after having seen the global success aikido has had in the last 40 years.

Now this opens an interesting thought: which is the predecessor? DR came first, then aikido, them modern DR. I am very much afraid that the current DR is too influenced by aikido.

Don_Modesto
11-13-2002, 09:16 AM
DR is of absolutely no importance to training in aikido whatsoever. If it was important, O'Sensei would have recommended it.

djm: He did (or something like it). Recall that UM wouldn't accept students unless they had already mastered another martial art.

There are a lot of variables in this issue, but the main point is as I have always said: Train diligently under an aikido shihan and gain a complete understanding of your art.

djm: Perhaps. But Darwin didn't come up with his theory by just pounding away as we are so often invited to do in the context of aikido. He took a break, read Adam Smith, borrowed the phrase "survival of the fittest", and better articulated what we now call the theory of evolution with a tip of the hat (with an invisible hand?) to economics. Training diligently with qualified teachers is sine qua non, of course. Tunnel vision is not.

Don't look for the quick and easy way.

djm: Ever read that anecdote about UM teaching naginata? He had a copy of a novel involving the use of this weapon in which he remained untutored and untrained placed on a shrine and slept on it. (g)

Aikido is a great and noble art ó don't be confused by small-minded individuals with ill intentions and darkness in their hearts.

djm: Hmm. UM himself said something to the effect that evil arises at that point where we distinguish good and bad.

Don_Modesto
11-13-2002, 09:19 AM
As for DR, I have seen many videos and it looks very interesting as well, however, it seems that many of the contemporary DR techniques have been influenced by aikido and not the opposite as one would presume.

djm: What is your point of reference for this observation?

When I will have my own dojo one day, The shomen will feature the picture of Osensei in the centre, but also the pictures of the other 2 persons who played such a big role in the creation of aikido.

djm: Nice thought. It might catch you some heat from your Jpn SHIHAN, though. TS is not regarded fondly in aikido circles.

learning aikido alone takes a lifetime, so I wouldn't want to complicate it further.

djm: This cynic's heart tingles at the resonance of "lifetime pursuit" with "customer loyalty".

Don_Modesto
11-13-2002, 09:33 AM
I guess I will be the odd one and say that History is important.

djm: Kindred soul!

Although unlike Modern day Daito ryu who feel the need to denounce O'sensei for watering down DTR and call it Aikido.

djm: As an aikido practitioner, I am comfortable with the term "watered-down," pejorative overtones notwithstanding (this, a rhetorical technique catalogued by Aristotle as "paramologia", stealing your opponents' thunder.) It dismisses frivolous bickering: Tomayto, tomahto as I seem to find myself posting frequently, no doubt to my fellow online denizens' probable tedium. As Peter Goldsbury posted so trencantly in one of the AJ debates, we probably lack the framework even to understand UM's "depth" not having read either the Kojiki or the Reikai Monogatari.

....more and more of O sensei's direct students are starting to pass on. With this loss of a direct link to Osensei, Myths can be promulagated to fact, and technique and his message can become lost, in favor of a more "american" approach to a culture that few really know about or really understand.

djm: If I understand aright, this is how the Jpn, largely unschooled in Chinese language and culture, catalyzed an irrational Zen from a theretofore far more wordy Ch'an. The half empty glass...

....If one really wants to know an art, how can they truly deny the history of that art?

djm: Incendiary stuff, this. Read the dismissive quotes of the second Doshu on aikido's debt to DR in Pranin's Aikido Masters.

To me the difference between knowing history and not knowing history is like that of the difference between a square and a cube. One has depth.

djm: Love that. Can I use it?

Don_Modesto
11-13-2002, 09:50 AM
1--How important (or not) is the study of Daito ryu aikijujutsu to you?

2--How does it affect your everyday training?

3--How important (or not) is the study of the history of aikido to you?

4--How does it affect your everyday training?
__________________

1--As I posted above re: Darwin/Smith, I value perspective highly.

2--My aikido tecnique is improving as a direct result of exposure to DR teaching (under Kondo and Ribot).

3--Ellis Amdur (http://www.ellisamdur.com/DuelingwithOsensei.htm) wrote a whole book of (excellent) essays pondering the inconsistencies of aikido philosophy and aikido practice. This shold be everyone's attitude to their art, IMO. Inquiring and critical.

The more "virtuous" among our practicing peers, would deny a place to ATEMI, e.g. They bite off more than they can eschew as is popularly demonstrated by resort to quotes of Shioda (pre-) and Saito (post-war) to the effect that ATEMI is 70/99% of aikido. History gives us the foundations and wherefores.

4--How vulnerable is aikido to complacency and fetishism! Cooperation, harmony, love! We could so easily get distracted from the roots of conflict defining the art. History, knowledge of UM's words and deeds, reminds us of his explicit martial intent. As Saotome so eloquently puts it, "Aikido is not plastic harmony!"

Roy Dean
11-13-2002, 12:17 PM
Although one can be an excellent aikidoist without studying anything other than Aikido, cross training can't help but improve your performance in a root art.

I studied Aikido for several years before changing gears and studying a Daito-Ryu derivative (Daito-Ryu Aiki-jujutsu--> Hakko-Ryu Jujutsu--> Seibukan Jujutsu).

It helped my Aikido, without a doubt. The circles in aiki-jujutsu are much smaller (closer to tiny spirals), and the application of techniques is more direct. Many techniques of aiki-jujutsu do not exist in modern day Aikido. This is either good nor bad, but studying these other techniques and principles definitely shifted my perspective on Ikkyo through Yonkyo.

Aikido has a dynamicism and fluidity of movement that many aiki-jujutsu systems lack. I also believe Aikido to be a premier art for developing sensitivity and timing.

The strengths of Aikido are numerous and formidable. It is not to be underestimated, although many aiki-jujutsu practitioners under the mistaken notion that THEIR art is THE art with the "secret" techniques, and Aikido (and other arts) are ineffective, watered down imitations of THE REAL samurai art. Whatever....

My own aikido/aik-jujutsu sensei, Julio Toribio, has once again put on the white belt and is formally studying under Kondo Sensei. He is exciting about this new journey, and even though the arts he's mastered are similar, they're still different enough to have DR both broaden his perspective and deepen his knowledge of what aiki actually is...

Roy Dean

mike lee
11-14-2002, 03:37 AM
I studied a number of arts that helped me to improve my aikido, including tai chi chuan and kendo. But I don't practice or teach those arts during aikido class. I don't make policy, I'm merely the instrument of my association's policy.

But some aikidoists consider DR as a cure-all for their low-quality training in aikido. They like to defend their actions with the "history" arguement. (Note: One doesn't need to know the complete history and lineage of firearms to shoot a completely new weapon for the first time.)

Some instructors are even trying to teach DR during their aikido class, while at the same time admitting that they really don't have a handle on either art.

While I've studied other arts, during aikido class I only teach aikido, not tai chi chuan, judo, flower arranging, or anything else. Although I may at times show aikido's relation to other arts during class, such illustrations are not necessary to gaining a solid understanding of aikido.

Roy Dean
11-14-2002, 01:23 PM
Mike,

I love the title of your last post:

Confused Teachers = Confused Students

It's so true! Mixing arts in a single class can often confuse students, and my teachers have always felt the same way.

It's amazing to watch Sensei Toribio teach as a Godan in Aikido, then completely switch hats and instruct as a Nanadan in Hakko-Ryu, or even make a more dramatic shift and teach a Ninjitsu seminar as a Judan in Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu! His clarity with keeping the arts separated is truly inspirational.

When I instruct my own University students in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, I also keep it pure. Students, expecially beginning students, are very impressionable. I've found that it's best to give students a solid foundation in one art, then let them explore whatever interests them, so they can arrive at their own martial truth. Sometimes confusion is healthy at this point, especially when contrasted with possibility of the instructor shutting down the student's mind.

One of the worst things an instructor can do is to insinuate that THEIR way is the ONLY way, or the ONLY RIGHT way to becoming a modern warrior or martial artist. Some students might buy into their instructor's defensive mindset and automatically cap their potential by not looking at other arts and other training methods.

Worst case scenario, the impressionable student becomes a "true believer," casting healthy skepticism to the side, and dismissing the strengths of other arts because it might contradict the theory and practice of the art they have invested their identity in. Unfortunately, some students never evolve from this state.

A teacher with an open mind both attracts and produces students with open minds. This is what attracted me to Sensei Toribio, and my current Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu instructor Roy Harris. Extensively cross-trained, they constantly push to expand their horizons in their own search for martial truth. They support their students in doing the same, and by letting us choose our own path, they secure our loyalty. Despite their "expert" status and international student base, they continue to grow and learn, inspiring us to grow and learn as well.

The more arts I study, the better my perspective becomes on what Aikido is and isn't. My perspective shifted significantly after I began training in aiki-jujutsu. It's also shifted this year, as I recognized the connections between Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and Aikido.

Sure, one can gain a solid understanding of Aikido by only studying Aikido, but I believe a greater understanding can be achieved by studying Aikido and its related arts, including Daito-Ryu. After all, if you're looking for the kind of martial prowess Morihei Ueshiba possessed, they you should train what he trained, and study what he studied, not just study what he taught, or what his student taught to you.

To briefly recap:

1. I agree that mixing arts in a single class isn't good, in the tradition of my own instructors.

2. Students are very impressionable, so it's important lead with an open mind and encourage their individual growth (through words and action), even if the student's path diverges from your own. To shut down their mind and their potential by insinuating your way is the ONLY true way may permanently stagnate their martial development. Better to be confused than close minded. At least the confused with look for the truth, instead of believing that they already know it.

3. A solid understanding of Aikido can be gained by only studying Aikido, however, this understanding can be refined by studying related arts, including Daito-Ryu.

I hope I've made my points clear. I'd hate for there to be any confusion on this matter.

Kind Regards,

Roy Dean

Chris Li
11-14-2002, 08:23 PM
I guess I will be the odd one and say that History is important.
Not so odd. Just about any serious art or academic field includes at least some study of the history of the art or field. Can you imagine getting a degree in art without courses in art history or a degree in music without courses in music history? What about a scientist who had never heard of Aristotle?

Although unlike Modern day Daito ryu who feel the need to denounce O'sensei for watering down DTR and call it Aikido. The popular story of O'sensei spending 25 years training with Takeda is a stretch at best. Takeda was very meticulous with his attendence registers of everyone he had taught. O'sensei's name clearly appears on these scrolls, indicating that Yes Osensei did train with him. But for a total of 70 days, spread out over 7 ten day seminars. which in some ways does little to reinforce the perception that Osensei spent 25 years of study under Takeda. This is clearly not the case.
M. Ueshiba also lived with Takeda for a period of around two years. He certainly studied under Takeda for a period that spanned some 25 years or more. How much actual contact he had during that time and whether that's a lot or a little depends, I suppose, upon your point of view, but it's altogether possible that he spent more time actually training with Takeda than any other of S. Takeda's students.
True, without DTR we would not have Aikido, and without Aikido I don't really think that DTR would share in the popularity it has today. O sensei created Aikido from DTR amongst other arts that he trained in. Oddly enough you never hear Tenjin shinyo ryu practioners complaining how Kano Sensei ripped them off in creating Kodokan Judo. Likewise Ona ha itto ryu and Kendo.


Those arts have always acknowledged their roots - this has not always been the case with Aikido.

Best,

Chris

Edward
11-14-2002, 10:52 PM
djm: What is your point of reference for this observation?

EK: Actually none. Just listening to conversations with several aikido shihans, but no articles or books if this is what you mean. However, I can see clearly in DR demonstrations great differences in style. It happens that those with fluid circular movement are the youngest ones. Isn't this interesting?

djm: Nice thought. It might catch you some heat from your Jpn SHIHAN, though. TS is not regarded fondly in aikido circles.

EK: You bet! "some heat" would be an understatement :)

djm: This cynic's heart tingles at the resonance of "lifetime pursuit" with "customer loyalty".

EK: Yes, and no. Surely aikikai hombu would like loyal customers, but if I'm happy with the product and the service is good, then no complaints. When I see my sensei's strength and technique at the age of 60, and how he became suddenly a student when he met his own teacher, and the humility with which he received instruction and correction eventhough he's a 7th dan. I don't find anything cynical about that.

Chris Li
11-14-2002, 11:40 PM
It is common knowledge now that DR has developed into something similar to aikido, probably after having seen the global success aikido has had in the last 40 years.
Where exactly is this "common knowledge"?

Best,

Chris

Edward
11-15-2002, 12:42 AM
Where exactly is this "common knowledge"?

Best,

Chris
Please refer to my reply to DJM regarding same question.

Matt Whyte
11-17-2002, 10:49 PM
I believe that the study of the history of Aikido is very important for the pratcitioner to gain an understanding of the way in which Aikido should be practiced. Not so much the study of Daito ryu, but the way in which Ueshiba managed to create his techiniques and the way in which he trained.

Chris Li
11-17-2002, 11:09 PM
Please refer to my reply to DJM regarding same question.
Is this the one that you mean?
Actually none. Just listening to conversations with several aikido shihans, but no articles or books if this is what you mean. However, I can see clearly in DR demonstrations great differences in style. It happens that those with fluid circular movement are the youngest ones. Isn't this interesting?
My guess would be that those shihans have little actual DR experience themselves. FWIW, I've heard at least two 8th dan uchi-deshi of M. Ueshiba make statements about DR technique (this was in the days before information about DR was widely available) that contained, as it turned out, gross errors.

In any case, watching a few demonstrations and the comments of a couple of Aikido folks is a lot different from "common knowledge", as in:
It is common knowledge now that DR has developed into something similar to aikido, probably after having seen the global success aikido has had in the last 40 years.
Wouldn't you say?

Best,

Chris

Lyndon Patel
11-30-2002, 10:59 AM
Hello, Let me introduce myself. My name is Lydon R. Patel. I am a new poster to this forum.

Upon reading this forum, I noticed this interesting discussions taking place in this thread. A topic discussion that I have posted to before on Aikido Journal's forum. The topic being discussed is of great concern and interest to me. I have enjoyed reading all the informative and enlightening posts.

Having a limited background in Aikido, which means I am not as fortunate or knowledgeable as many fine Aikidoka here who have trained more extensively, I would like to offer an opinion regarding what has been discussed about Aikido and DR History.

I remember when DR was at best fuzzy to so many of us Aikidoka. DR wasn't known in accurate detail it's relation to Aikido as it is today. Due to the internet, the recent accessibility to DR, and publications DR did have a great technical influence on Aikido. With DR, IMHO, Aikido would be standing on a less solid foundation. Because of the information we now know about DR it makes Aikido unique. I personally feel Aikido is stronger of an art that it stands on the DR foundation. This doesnít make Aikido comparable to or the same art as DR . By knowing more accurately the roots of Aikido we can better understand the function and formation, and purpose of Aikido. Misinformation , inaccurate information, and a like, can only cause damage to Aikido. We all know that credence is lost when misinformation becomes myth and rumor.

There are many things I think that are not shared by Aikido and DR which makes the two arts different from each other. There are also things that they share, which compliment each other and donít compromise the unique identity of either one. By knowing the facts and accurate information, Aikido can only be stronger. When people understand OíSenseiís history accurately it can only become a more powerful support to the purpose and independence of Aikido.. By understanding DR role in Aikido doesnít mean in any way a loss to Aikido.

We as Aikidoka donít have to jump ship and join the praises of DR. Nor abandon Aikido and be evangelicals for DR. The danger is when we as Aikidoka become resistant to the possibility that new information brings and accepting it if it is accurate. We do more damage to Aikido, when we fail to see that knowledge is power. We hinder our own growth with ignorance of the facts.. We destroy Aikido when when we are not accurately informed.

Edward
11-30-2002, 11:00 PM
In any case, watching a few demonstrations and the comments of a couple of Aikido folks is a lot different from "common knowledge
Point taken. I should have said "in my point of view" or something...

However, I do stand on my point that, eventhough many aikido techniques might come originally from DR, modern DR's softer and more circular approach to techniques has been very largely influenced by aikido, and by the ideas of Morihei Ueshiba. Why? Simply because they have been succesfull in appealing to a large public who is looking for a non-violent MA, while DR was on its way to be extinct. The formula works, so why not use it?

If you read Kondo Sensei's interviews without knowing his identity, you would think he is an aikido shihan. I do not think Sokaku Takeda would have shared his views.

This said, I would like to add that I myself am an admirer of modern DR because of its solid basics and large repertoire of techniques. I agree with Mr. Patel that knowing DR gives us aikidoka a much stronger foundation.

But it is important to give credit where it is due.

BTW, Christopher, I notice from your posts that you do not hold the aikikai and the Ueshiba family in great esteem. Is my observation right? And would you care to tell us the reason?

DanD
12-01-2002, 12:06 AM
Quote:
"Going through the Aikido Journal threads mentioned above, I didn't see evidence of anyone trying to discredit O-Sensei or the way aikido is currently practiced".

Not in the Aikido Journal threads but ...

I bumped into this article by "accident".

http://www.ishiyamaryu.com/history.html

Scroll down to "The Crime Of Contemporary Aikido"

Quite surprising to see so much "steaming" (or is it frustration ?) from a Sensei.

What Do is that ? ;)

mike lee
12-01-2002, 02:23 AM
Hello, Let me introduce myself. My name is Lydon R. Patel. I am a new poster to this forum.

What art do you practice now?

mike lee
12-01-2002, 07:40 AM
Scroll down to "The Crime Of Contemporary Aikido"

Quite surprising to see so much "steaming" (or is it frustration ?) from a Sensei.

The man clearly has very limited experience in aikido, but he seems to think quite highly of himself. If he really knew anything about the martial arts, he wouldn't make such questionable remarks about another art on a Web page.

Lyndon Patel
12-01-2002, 05:58 PM
Aikido, Mexico City, Mexico. 1985.

drDalek
12-02-2002, 02:29 AM
I am interested in actually SEEING some Daito Ryu Aikijutsu so that I can make up my own mind. Can anyone suggest some downloadable video clips or photos that illustrate the techniques?

mike lee
12-02-2002, 02:49 AM
By understanding DR role in Aikido doesnít mean in any way a loss to Aikido.

DR has absolutely no role in modern aikido.

mike lee
12-02-2002, 02:59 AM
First Name Lyndon†

Last Name Patel†

Location †

Dojo †

Interests †

Primary Teacher(s) †

Occupation †

Interesting. This person appearently doesn't have a dojo or a teacher, but they suddenly show up on an aikido forum claiming that they are going to dispel aikido "myths," whatever that means. Then they start talking about another martial art. Anybody see a pattern or two developing here?

PeterR
12-02-2002, 03:53 AM
I notice that you have filled in your profile. I also remember that you were dispencing pearls of wisdom long before you did so.

There are quite a few people that haven't filled in their profile either. I didn't reallize it was mandatory. You asked where he studied, he answered. What is your problem?
Interesting. This person appearently doesn't have a dojo or a teacher, but they suddenly show up on an aikido forum claiming that they are going to dispel aikido "myths," whatever that means. Then they start talking about another martial art. Anybody see a pattern or two developing here?

mike lee
12-02-2002, 04:11 AM
I notice that you have filled in your profile. I also remember that you were dispencing pearls of wisdom long before you did so.

False.

My profile was filled in as soon as I became active in a dojo. I double-checked my profile yesterday and added the flag for fun. What's your problem?

PeterR
12-02-2002, 04:26 AM
If you did my appologies - I seem to remember trying to figure out just who you were when you burst on to the scene.

My problem is very simple. Someone disagrees with your world view and he becomes public enemy number one. You asked the man a question, he answered, and you continue your attack - moving the goal posts. Its a pattern - are you like that in real life?


False.

My profile was filled in as soon as I became active in a dojo. I double-checked my profile yesterday and added the flag for fun. What's your problem?

mike lee
12-02-2002, 04:34 AM
... are you like that in real life?

Is there an unreal life?

Oops! Did I move the goal posts again?

Bruce Baker
12-02-2002, 06:10 AM
It is a pity we are the center of the universe, but since we are limited to being who we are, learning in our human shells, we are each the center of the universe.

This may be the cause of 'goal posts moving' or pearls of wisdom that seem ungainly when put into the experience of our own lives, but there is a comedy to it all, isn't there?

As far as the title question, it would seem the validation of preserving pieces of the martial arts puzzle is in the eye of the beholder. That is to say, we have yet to find a total system that can hold all the different ways you can use martial arts, and preserve them within one or two systems of practice.

Who cares if one art is touted above another, or the roots of two arts diverge and take different paths as they develope?

The importance is that they each preserve and continue to keep alive different types of practices alive so that we have a choice to pick and choose what works for each of us.

To the effect that we needle each other ...

Oh well.

Reminds me of kids around the dinner table.

MikeE
12-02-2002, 09:52 AM
Back on the subject at hand.....

I think a historical understanding of Daito-ryu is very important to knowing your roots.

I think the Daito-ryu taught today is an evolution to an art that can be used in a modern era without having the legal retribution of dispacting an opponent with the casual air of an Aizu clan samurai.

Daito ryu was (the secret art practiced by the Aizu clan samurai) feared because of its battlefield effectiveness. When you were on the battlefield, you weren't concerned so much with the guy in front of you, you were worried about the 3 to 5 guys behind him.

So, it had to be brutally effective.

It's nice to know that in a life or death situation, that this is a primary root of the art I practice, and can be brutally effective if necessary.

mike lee
12-02-2002, 10:06 AM
I think a historical understanding of Daito-ryu is very important to knowing your roots.

I completely concur. A historical understanding of Daito-ryu is very important to knowing the roots of DR.

Alfonso
12-02-2002, 11:18 AM
I think it's important that the history be known so that there's less misinformation being repeated about stuff we don't know about.

I study Aikido, I'm barely coming to grips with its own technical repertoire which "limited" as it seems to be in counting numbers, is vast enough to keep me busy.

The problem I see with ignoring DR, is that invariably when it comes into the scene, preposterous claims follow.

Just from reading the discussions about DR, you can see that there are as many issues surrounding their practicioners as there are surrounding Aikido practicioners.

Ultimately though I don't really care that much. The Ueshiba family, and in particular Doshu (1) decided to make their art available to the world. That is a gift worthy of respect.

Yeah, so there are people who can't use Aikido effectively. So? Is the implication that DR has all that Aikido lacks? Well maybe studying the history will make that issue clear.

As for the argument that we are doing a disservice to our teachers by trying to learn what they taught???? seems to me that's upside down.

If my teacher required me to become brutally efficient at killing and breaking bones to become soft again that would be one thing. I think that second guessing, and ignoring what our teachers are trying to teach in favor of a more "rational" approach is just a way to make an excuse out of your own inadequacies.

Lyndon Patel
12-02-2002, 11:56 AM
I would like to thank this forum for allowing me to visit here and express an opinion and concern for one last time. I would like to close with the following comment.

As an Aikidoka who has retired from the art, and has past it on to my children, I can say, it is a noble and gentleman's art that has allot to offer regardless of it's parent art(s).

In a lot of the forums that I read about Aikido I have heard a tone of insecurity from some in terms of staunch resistance and complete denial to DR. This insecurity may be due to the fear Aikido will change or die because of O'Sensei's training in DR. That this knowledge that Aikido has a history in DR some how affects Aikido. I wouldnít worry. DR has already effected OíSensei, giving rise to Aikido. DR was changed by OíSensei. I donít think any current influence by DR is reinventing the wheel poorly.

By getting a DR tape from Aikido Journal ( the only source I know of) and looking at ( as I did ) can only enhance in understanding the differences and similarities between the two arts. Aikido isnít just about technique, it is about the intellect of OíSensei in a changing world.

I get offended when I read posts from some DR people. Some posts I read say DR is technically better and Aikido is a diluted inferior form of DR. But I keep in mind that these people are new to DR. DR has only recently joined the world martial arts community. Like other arts, there are only a few people qualified in DR who know DR well enough to say if DR is or isnít superior to Aikido. I donít think they are going to say such a thing. Because it would be cutting off a nose to spite a face. I donít think those who post on DR in internet forums are qualified to make statements on the viability of Aikido or statements on DR. There is nothing more annoying then having a white belt /novice speak as an authority on an art. Even worse is the cheerleaders and talking heads sounding off. This doesnít matter what art it is. I donít take seriously anything on DR or criticism of Aikido unless it comes from the top.

Last thought. Of what I understand of DR, it is purely a martial art. Just as fotbal is a sport. Primarily concerned with techniques. There is no universal spiritual direction as there is in Aikido. Whereas, Aikido is two fold with spiritual and technically interrelated. Technique is to lead you to a spiritual awakening. Maybe not the kind other religions or cultures have. But the kind of realization that comes when we realize change is effective, when control is seen as a means of effective change and not as an absolute destruction. OíSensei decided that he would give his martial arts abilities an unique purpose. That his skill wasnít just about how to defeating another person, like the old martial combat tenet, but it was to be more profoundly fulfilling and gratifying. It would not be unreasonable to say Aikido is a martial art ( letís not forget Hell dojo, or OíSenseiís skill and how he got there). Nor would it be unreasonable to say it is more than a martial art. Aikido has a component unique to itís self. A component as unique as OíSensei was and that can never be altered regardless of Aikidoís history. That component is OíSensei. It is O'Sensei that makes Aikido, Aikido.

I don't really think it matters whether DR is or isn't Aikido's only parent. I think what matters is how people deal with new information regarding Aikido.

MikeE
12-02-2002, 12:36 PM
I think we as Aikidoka should take pride in our Daito-ryu heritage. It allows us to see our lineage wind back hundreds and hundreds of years.

Face it, Aikido was not bourne of nothing and just sprang forth from O'Sensei. Daito ryu and (to some extent) other styles of koryu arts help O'Sensei bring together the physicality of Aikido.

IMHO, I believe the spiritual & philosophical aspects of the art are what really separates it from its predecessor. And that was definitely O'Sensei's gift to us.

Take pride in your rich heritage. Celebrate the similarities....don't dwell on the differences.

Chris Li
12-02-2002, 03:38 PM
I completely concur. A historical understanding of Daito-ryu is very important to knowing the roots of DR.
Are you saying that Daito-ryu had no place in the roots of Aikido?

Best,

Chris

PeterR
12-02-2002, 06:50 PM
I get offended when I read posts from some DR people. Some posts I read say DR is technically better and Aikido is a diluted inferior form of DR. But I keep in mind that these people are new to DR. DR has only recently joined the world martial arts community. Like other arts, there are only a few people qualified in DR who know DR well enough to say if DR is or isnít superior to Aikido.
You and me both, I think there is a lot of reactionism with respect to both views. My favourite is talking to some person who says they have been doing Daito Ryu for roughly two years and talking as if they have some deep understanding that no Aikidoist could ever get. Of course their favourite are those that deny any connection between Aikido and Takeda S.

Frankly speaking I have not been totally impressed with what I've seen of much Aikido and Daito-ryu - its the exceptions that make it interesting. I see myself amoung the masses but here in Osaka, having seen what's on offer, I train with Nariyama. Not Aikido, not Daito-ryu, but him. The fact that he calls the Budo he does Aikido is besides the point.

I think its important to understand the history of your teachers and their teachers. For an Aikidoist Daito-ryu is part of that and exploring their techniques is probably the best way to understanding the origins of what we do. By the way, I have never seen anything claimed to be Daito Ryu that I haven't seen somewhere in an Aikido dojo. It may be the old argument about variations versus distinct techniques, or I have not seen enough. Take your pick.

Edward
12-02-2002, 11:32 PM
Just one more comment about aikido being deluted. I don't think this is really true. Of course Osensei excluded leg locks and strangulations from his art, but many aikido dojos do teach these techniques. This is also true for kicks. There are innumerable variations of kokyunage. They are all called kokyunage. Maybe in DR each of these techniques has a different name. Every time I visit a new dojo, I discover a new variation of kokyunage. In an interview with Kondo Sensei, he says that what we call Ikkyo in aikido is actually a group of several techniques each with a different name. Well, I humbly can say that I can do Ikkyo in at least 10 different ways, maybe more. The fact that we call them all Ikkyo in aikido does not mean that there is only one technique.

akiy
12-03-2002, 12:26 AM
In an interview with Kondo Sensei, he says that what we call Ikkyo in aikido is actually a group of several techniques each with a different name. Well, I humbly can say that I can do Ikkyo in at least 10 different ways, maybe more. The fact that we call them all Ikkyo in aikido does not mean that there is only one technique.
I'm not very well-versed in Daito Ryu so I hope people with more experience/knowledge will feel welcome to correct me, but I believe the "ikkajo no bu" (the "ikkajo" section) in Daito Ryu contains techniques that we in aikido would call ikkyo but also other "aikido" techniques like kotegaeshi and shihonage. Can anyone clarify/correct me on this?

I also believe they use the terms "omote" and "ura" in a different manner (not referring to nage's location in the technique). Can anyone clarify/correct me on this, too?

-- Jun

willy_lee
12-03-2002, 02:09 AM
I'm not very well-versed in Daito Ryu so I hope people with more experience/knowledge will feel welcome to correct me, but I believe the "ikkajo no bu" (the "ikkajo" section) in Daito Ryu contains techniques that we in aikido would call ikkyo but also other "aikido" techniques like kotegaeshi and shihonage. Can anyone clarify/correct me on this?
I believe this is correct. I am no DR expert by any means but I do have Kondo sensei's book on the Hiden Mokuroku Ikkajo. I don't have it in front of me (don't want to wake up the baby) but ikkajo in this case means simply the first set of techniques learned.
I also believe they use the terms "omote" and "ura" in a different manner (not referring to nage's location in the technique). Can anyone clarify/correct me on this, too?

-- Jun
I am not sure about this in the DR context but many (most?) koryu use "omote" and "ura" in the sense of not-hidden and hidden. Hm, those words don't seem to be quite right but I'm durned if I can think of better ones right now. I'm not explaining this very well, I'm afraid. In any case I am again no expert, just going by what I read in Karl Friday's book.

Wow, I am jumping in here into pretty deep waters, I'd better get out and towel off while I still can. Back to lurking! :)

=wl