Quote:
Mark Murray wrote:
Just to clarify. Tim Ruijs actually said that that Tamura stated Ueshiba hardly explained anything. That's fairly accurate.
Now, let's establish some other factors in Ueshiba's teaching style.
1. Spiritually: Nearly every single student, with only rare exceptions, stated that they had absolutely no idea what he was talking about. Did Ueshiba manage to get across to his students his spiritual vision/ideology? Was he a good teacher? We would have to answer that with no.
2. Techniques:
Tamura already chimed in on that.
Kisshomaru states: During his later years, rather than teach, my father demonstrated movements which were in accord with the flow of the universe and unified with nature. Thus, it was a matter of students watching his movements, learning by themselves, in that way understanding his technique. He wasn't deeply concerned about teaching students (Aiki News Issue 031)
Kunigoshi stated Ueshiba didn't really explain techniques. (Aiki News 047)
Shirata said: Ueshiba Sensei's way of explaining techniques was first of all to give the names of kamisama (deities). After that, he explained the movement. He told us, "Aikido originally didn't have any form. The movements of the body in response to one's state of mind became the techniques.
and also
… in our time, Ueshiba Sensei didn't teach systematically. While we learned we had to systemize each technique in our mind so it was very hard. Ueshiba Sensei didn't have techniques. He said: "There are no techniques. What you express each time is a technique." (Aiki News Issue 063)
Kamata said that sometimes Ueshiba would explain. (Aiki News Issue 049)
Sugino said Ueshiba didn't explain. (Aiki News Issue 069)
Mochizuki: Uyeshiba Sensei's teaching pushed me a lot to think. He could never show again what he did in randori. I would say, "What was that?" and he would reply, "I got that from God suddenly. I don't remember." To Uyeshiba Sensei, ki (internal energy) was inspiration from God. So I had to rationalize and try to extract basics from multiple variations. Also, Uyeshiba Sensei was not concerned with teaching at the time I was studying under him. We were mostly training partners to him. (Black Belt 1989 Vol 27 No 8)
Robert Frager states: I understood very little of his talks. Osensei used a great many esoteric Shinto terms, and he spoke with a strong regional accent. His teachings were pitched at a philosophical, mystical level, far above my beginner's concerns about where I had to place my hands and feet. I puzzled over statements like, "When you practice Aikido, you stand on the floating bridge between heaven and earth," and "Put the Shinto Goddess 'She-who-invites' in your left foot and the God 'He-who-approaches' in your right foot." (Yoga Journal March 1982)
Crud, I'll stop there. There's too much information. Overwhelmingly, both pre-war and post-war Ueshiba's students state that he really didn't explain. He would show and then add in his spiritual talk (that they didn't understand).
Nearly every single student, with only rare exceptions, stated that they received no explanations for techniques. Did Ueshiba manage to get across to his students the techniques? Obviously, as we have multiple schools of aikido. However, it was not easy and required years of effort for the students to create a curriculum. That's the important part -- the students created a curriculum of what they *saw*. Ueshiba always stated aikido was formless. Was he a good teacher? I'd have to say no. For a formless art, he allowed his students to build a technique based curriculum on what they *saw* rather than on what he "taught".
3. Aiki:
That red-headed step child who won't go away. More bickering amongst lawyers, friends, and parents. Every time I turn around, there's that red-headed step child. Sheesh. And by the looks of him, he might actually have some Chinese lineage in him from his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-oh, 400 years great grandfather.
Who amongst Ueshiba's students stands out as great? A few pre-war students. But, wait, they weren't training aikido *at all*. They were training Daito ryu.
Was Ueshiba a good teacher for aiki? I'd have to say not really but with a caveat. Takeda told them not to teach it to everyone. Looking at Sagawa and Kodo, Ueshiba merely did the same as his peers. Could Ueshiba have been a good teacher of aiki? Perhaps. He knew how to train it. Sagawa and Kodo did, too. They each created a few men who had it. So, it's mostly probably that Ueshiba could have done so, too. He chose not to.
|
Marc.
Look at the statement 'Ueshiba hardly explained anything' and tell me what's nonsensical about it.
Anyone with half a brain would know he explained lots, probably too much in my opinion for it was over most peoples heads.
So let's take up your points above by number.
1) Spiritual. Now that contradicts that he hardly explained anything doesn't it? He explained plenty otherwise how could they say they didn't understand what he was talking about?
Did he thus communicate? Yes. Was he a good teacher? Well by all accounts he was called O'Sensei, great teacher, was he not?
Didn't he personally train all those uchideshi who you now call the giants of Aikido? Who went on to form their own successful forms of Aikido?
Has anyone else taught as many greats as he did?
How many greats of other martial arts who met him and tested him said he was not a great teacher?
Instead of listening to and concluding from odd negative statements why not pin those same detractors down and ask them what they DID learn from him for only then may you get a more balanced view. I think you will then find a whole array of different positive influences and changes he caused in each individual, a whole array of different understandings and gained abilities.
Sounds like a great teacher to me.
2) In the later years he 'taught' less but showed and demonstrated. Well, hadn't he said enough already?
You say he got across his techniques to his students. That's teaching.
You say it was hard for them. That's studying and practice.
They created a curriculum from what they learned obviously, not what they saw, unless they were numbskulls. Who did they create a curriculum for? Why?
So obviously him allowing a curriculum is him seeing others need to learn that way which just shows his humility to me which makes him all the greater. So that would be their way of teaching from where they were at. Meanwhile his way of teaching was his responsibility to carry on.
3) Aikido came about after the war didn't it? So he was the only teacher of this new Aiki. After his realization. Before therefore is null and void and that includes Takeda.
Now to reality. Show films of Ueshiba and films of any other daito ryu or Aikido teacher to friends and family and strangers and tell me who they are attracted to.
Show me how many different websites to do with things other than martial arts where his words are used in a positive and life helping way. Thousands. That's quite a reach I would say. That's quite a powerful achievement I would say. That's the main reason people are attracted to Aikido I would say. What he said and what he demonstrated is still by far and away the biggest attraction to Aikido for people worldwide. Wow! Still teaching after all these years.
Every Aikido teacher that has had any success has used His name and philosophy in order to get students. No one was attracted by his son for he was responsible for organization in order to handle the want.
Without him there would be no Aikido.
Without his words there would be no worldwide interest.
Without his ability there would be no O'Sensei title and a mere fraction of adherents.
Without his teaching there would be nothing, not even this forum.
There wouldn't even be a string of people saying 'I didn't understand'
The quotes from all those teachers are laughable frankly. Those who use those statements are blind as far as I'm concerned. For those same teachers use, boast, and brag about what they did under his tutelage. Not bad for people who understood nothing.
Regards.G.