View Single Post
Old 02-10-2010, 10:28 AM   #135
JW
 
JW's Avatar
Location: San Diego CA USA
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 561
Offline
Re: Aiki-Ken vs reality

Quote:
Toby Threadgill wrote: View Post
Sometimes I think people jump into a discussion without gettiing a sense for the flow of the whole thread..........
OK, touché. I guess I lost track of the thread, and I am still learning when to keep my mouth (keyboard) shut. I will start a new thread to pursue what I am thinking, something about the importance of the sword to aikido or aiki or something like that. But your points here are well taken, and I agree with what you said, apparently more than it sounds like. Apologies for hijacking the thread.

Also-- NOT for the sake of continued discussion in this thread-- just because my above posts apparently make me look like a jackass, I want to say briefly where I was coming from so that I retain some semblance of coherent value to aikiweb forums:

1. I know blades and bokkens are different. I don't want aikidoka to be concerned with for instance the inside/outside asymmetry of a sword (example of sword arts and aikiken having legitimate hardware difference), but when a swordsman looks at one of our kata and says, "a real swordsman would have easily cut the knee and ended it," or "that's not even close to how a sword is swung," that's just embarassing.
2. I understood O-sensei to be an EXCEPTIONALLY GOOD swordsman. This is what teachers have told me, it is what I have seen lots of the aikido community to believe, and it seems to be supported in history (Mark Murray is fond of mentioning that real swordsmen came to him to study).
3. Many believe (as did my teachers in the Saito line where I started aikido training) that aikido taijutsu is "based on sword work." This doesn't have to mean one swordsman invented the taijutsu kata based on his sword skills. But we have been taught that somehow, the body and ki movements in real Japanese sword arts have sustained or given rise to the essence of what we study in aikido. Thus if we are in fact doing "fake" sword work, one kind of feels cheated.
4. O-sensei did have a role (Ellis Amdur called it "almost vampiric" IIRC in his usaikido podcast) for his followers-- but it apparently didn't focus on accurate preservation of his own technical skills. Case in point, where is aiki in modern aikido.. where is even basic kokyu? My point is that if his understanding came from accurate, legitimate sword usage, and his students (our teachers) didn't learn it accurately, should we fill in the gap or be doomed to whacking whacky sticks?
5. To me, "shaky ground" is our teachers in legitimate aikido lineages telling us that our founder was a great swordsman, and sword work is somehow at the root of what we do, all the while our "sword work" is not grounded in actual sword work. We don't need to be top-notch swordsmen, but what we do technically should be a reflection of what real swordsmanship is about. So yes, sword arts or sogo bujutsu arts should be the source of sword mastery, but if swords really are important in aikido, aikido should at least show the basics (if not the intricacies) of real technique.

Again though, this is just what I was thinking before, but your points are well taken, thanks!
--Jonathan Wong
  Reply With Quote