Location: Portland, OR
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 532
Offline
|
Re: Aiki-Ken vs reality
Quote:
Joshua Reyer wrote:
Well, let me offer my take as someone who's been part of the flow of the whole thread.
I do not believe that it was Ueshiba's intention that aikido incorporate anything that had the distinct character of an authentic ryuha. I do believe, however, that it was his intention to incorporate effective swordwork into his aikido, swordwork that followed the principles of combat as he saw them. I took the liberty of being critical of Ueshiba's performance in the Asashi Shimbun film earlier, let me now state for the record that I don't think any kenjutsu practitioner in the world would look at Ueshiba's later films and find any fault with his swordwork. For Ueshiba, at least, "aiki-ken" represented a perfect expression of his view of budo, in body, mind, and deed, with a sword.
In my experience with teachers teaching aiki-ken (essentially students of Saito, and what I have read of Nishio), not one of them ever said anything to the effect that "In real kenjutsu, this would be ridiculous, but this is aiki-ken, so it has such-and-such purpose." Everyone of them believed, or at least maintained, that they were using the sword soundly, in accordance with the principles of swordsmanship, and the combat paradigm of aikido. I believe such aiki-ken is an attainable goal.
He represented it as containing the "riai" of the ken, jo, and empty hand. If it has the riai of the sword, aiki-ken should not be "bad swordsmanship". It may be incomplete, as Mr. Ledyard alluded to earlier, but not "bad".
Ueshiba did not plumb the depths of a particular ryuha, no. But we know that swordsmanship was considered an integral part of his study. We know that he used some dabbling in Kashima Shinto-ryu and Yagyu Shinkage-ryu to further his own personal research. We can probably assume that he picked up similar smatterings of Jikishinkage-ryu and/or Ono-ha Itto-ryu from Takeda, since he attested to picking up smatterings of Hozoin-ryu from the same. Hell, that's if we don't believe that the (unlikely) theory that Takeda was licensed in the Edo line of Yagyu Shinkage-ryu and explicitly taught that to Ueshiba, to the point of giving him an official license in it.
We know that Ueshiba shared his distilled knowledge of swordsmanship with his pre-war and immediate post-war students, and that he encouraged his later post-war students, such as Nishio and Chiba, to take up the study of iai, ostensibly to aid in their understanding of their taijutsu. According to Shioda, his last "test" with Ueshiba included a taijutsu and a ken portion, the latter being something at least similar to a sparring match. In light of all that, I don't think we can assume that swordsmanship to Ueshiba was simply employing a bokken as a teaching tool.
The distinction between aiki-ken and "kenjutsu" should not be that aiki-ken doesn't have to be real or practical because it's simply an aid to the taijutsu, and "kenjutsu" is purely concerned with whatever that particular ryuha is concerned with. The distinction should be that aiki-ken is swordsmanship (kenjutsu, if you will) grounded in the combat paradigm of aikido, including such things as aiki (however one wants to define it) as well as such principles as irimi-denkan and/or irimi-issoku, and so on, while other kenjutsu is concerned with whatever that particular ryuha is concerned with.
|
Well stated and in complete alignment with my experience of the presentation and understanding of the purpose and practice of ken (and other weaponry) taught by my sensei, one receptor of Ueshiba's "distilled knowledge of swordsmanship" from the pre-war period. Certainly when Ueshiba sensei taught military personnel during this period it was for a particular purpose and those lessons did include the practice of weaponry.
Quote:
Joshua Reyer wrote:
Speaking now only of Saito-style aiki-ken, by Saito's own words and claims, there must be a proper "riai" -- a joining of inherent principles -- between ken, jo, and tai. Jo and tai inform and augment the ken, ken and tai inform and augment the jo, and ken and jo inform and augment the tai. In order to have the "riai", you have to have the "ri" -- the essential reasoning and principles. If your ken doesn't have the "ri" of the ken, then you don't have any "riai".
That said, in my opinion, in Saito Morihiro, at least, there was this "riai". Some of the work of his students may not have always fulfilled the "ri" of the sword, but from what I've seen his own aiki-ken always seemed good, and integrated with his jo and tai. Nor in any of his writings on aiki-ken have I seen anything that struck me as wrong or weird. The only thing I think is odd is the tachi-dori stuff, but of course that's endemic throughout aikido.
|
While Shirata sensei's weapons practice was different in many ways from Saito Morihiro sensei's, the idea of "riai" was certainly present and emphasized and I think there certainly was an appreciation of the continuity from Ueshiba to Saito sensei by Shirata sensei seeing as his dojo was one of the few he frequented for training. This is made even more significant when one considers that Saito sensei was most definitely a chronological kohai to Shirata sensei.
Considering Toby's "quarter comment," perhaps my posts may have come off as "overly exuberant." However, with several decades of Aikido under my belt, I know what I experienced and what I was taught by my teacher. I know he had far more than a passing familiarity with the actuall usage of the Ken (Yes, the shinken as well as a bokken, both inside and outside of the dojo.) I know he attributed what he taught to his teacher. I understand that that knowledge may not be adequately represented by his students (me included) but that doesn't discount the original understanding. I understand that other teacher's understanding of Aiki-ken probably is different or even non-existant (Many teachers don't teach weapons. Many for good reason, they weren't adequately taught weapons!) That is why I stated in my first post that to even have this discussion is probably close to impossible, and doomed from the beginning because of this disparity of experience and understanding.
I suppose what gets me cranked up (why I re-posted) is when definitive statements are made that stand in direct contradiction to my experience and what I was taught. Specifically that was, if you are going to do something, do it for real whether it be martial or spiritual. (Real being defined as: It functions in the assumed context.) I have found this to be a high standard, but a worthy one that continues to take my lifetime to pursue.
Please notice that, while George and I may not agree on everything (He likes caffeinated coffee A LOT, and I like decaffeinated), I don't have a problem with George's post at all. He said, "To my mind . . ." "I think I understand . . ." "I think it should be . . . " He can make statements about his experience with his teacher and Aikido definitively. That is HIS experience. He can state his opinion definitively. That is HIS opinion. (One which I certainly listen to BTW. George is a thoughtful person with a wide breadth of experience.) What he didn't do here, or at least I never noticed it, is categorically define Aiki-ken or its purpose.
As I stated in my first post. I think that defining what Aiki-ken is should reasonably be left to O-sensei. Beyond that, it seems to me that, everybody else can only simply offer their interpretations of what O-sensei meant.
But I repeat myself. Taking a chill pill . . . or at least a cup of decaffeinated coffee . . .
Allen
|