Re: Transmission, Inheritance, Emulation 10
One small correction ,my comment on Japanese teachers feeling a need to show sword to gaijin shouldn't have been assigned to the 30's, I was thinking more the late 70's to the present
Also I think you know the whole Kashima ordeal from the temple training and them not beng allowed to teach but they kept right on doing so within Aikido, and you just didn't want to elaborate.
This comment from one of the Deshi I found interesting
"I think we should stop doing sword and jo taking exhibitions at the Aikikai demos. There are probably real swordsmen in the audience and it is an insult to them, because they could cut anyone in the room in two."
I am reminded of our recent conversation regarding ippon dori, and my comments then. It's nice to know, (and I probably should have assumed the best) that my comments heres were applicable to these chaps as well.
...An inner self-awareness of their own comparative worth in a very real comparison to truly gifted Koryu weapons experts
and what the talent pool around them must have been, I could understand those guys being reluctant to talk about (show) their "weapons work"
This makes me feel even more compassion for their mission and what they had to struggle with. The entire research aspect always plays out much better through the eyes, and in the hands of guys with a broader background of the subject. Case in point, the early deshi (I consider that post war-the prewar guys were doing Daito ryu, plain and simple) are so often venerated and treated as "experts" under Osensei. You two do a much finer job of bringing them to light. I must say seeing their own assessment of their "swordwork" and take-aways, in light of who was in the audience, echo's many conversations and assessments from the Koryu end quite well. It puts a whole knew light on the subject knowing they didn't want to demonstrate that stuff either.
So again, this new information brings about other questions.
Saito, Kuroiwa, Iimura were representative of -I am assuming here-many others who "got it" and were conscripted into doing these displays they themselves wanted nothing to do with. So we are left to assume what?
Kissomaru didn't get it?
Or, he did but didn't care?
What does that mean?
He knew it was false but made a good road show?
He had some supposedly greater vision in mind?
What was the environment or mindset that produced the need to "represent" that stuff in any era? Lest anyone think I am picking on Aikido (George) Sakakibara and Takeda had their own budo road show, that many believe was the nexus that led to Daito ryu's "capturing and pinning five guys at once" displays, and their very own version of teachers admitting in interviews that.. "We really should stop doing those things in public.There could be serious budo men watching."
In light of people who got involved and thought they were learning from Japanese experts in this or that, and that everything they see had a pedagogy in Samurai arts its refreshing to read so much candor, such as
With few exceptions, no one's interested as to where it came from, what it means, or much of anything else.
Then again it makes a strident case for Caveat emptor doesn't it?
Who's to judge the value of anything, and by what standard? Well it worked on me so it must be good stuff right? Who would question the value and bury a waza in the back yard and leave it whimpering when it proved lacking after testing- when facing another kory exponent who's training taught them to cut while stepping back in retreat and therefore undid the waza?
I think I like the mindset of ...let weapon training be weapon training and not trying to morph THEM to body skills and grappling. Think of the inherint errors in that.
Last edited by DH : 09-23-2008 at 07:58 AM.