Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: On what basis do you conclude this? The uchi deshi got a lot of one-on-one time with Ueshiba. Heck, that's what being an uchi deshi meant. So I'm not sure anyone who wasn't there is in a position to say what was or was not taught to his closest students. Katherine

So are you saying that Ueshiba transmitted a formal method of training internal power to his uchi deshi, was clear with them that this was to be an integral part of Aikido, and then they refused to teach it to their own students?

I am saying that he never transmitted a formal method of training internal power to his students, because if he had, they'd have all transmitted it to us.

And since no formal method was transmitted - either he didn't care or he never figured anything out that was an effective way to teach, or he thought that normal paired training of waza would be sufficient - then it isn't really part of Aikido. Certainly if you like IP training it can be a wonderful thing to cross train in, and a great part of your own practice.

Cliff Judge wrote: You can hardly blame the Aikikai for not transmitting "Aiki" when this is a term you have appropriated and applied to a body skill that was never transmitted in the art, ever, in the first place. But maybe you are supposed to do that - come up with your own ideas, figure out your own stuff? Maybe we only come up with a small number of folks with flashy seminar skills each generation, who knows what everybody else is coming up with?

"Aiki" predates aikido. I would take issue with a claim that the current definition circulating from me is either original or new. Probably, it is more universal than the "aikido-centric" view of aiki, with cannot transcend the art. Not for this thread, but an interesting discussion if you are trying to invalidate any definition of aiki, as opposed to a single definition with which you take exception.

Second, I think there is some demand for personal accountability for our training. Very likely, there is some glass ceiling that requires an additional effort to break in order to elevate your abilities. Certainly, O Sensei has a number of stories surrounding his ability to conceptualize fighting arts and us those conceptualizations to improve his skills. Conversely, he often expanded his "aikido" to include those arts he found contained aiki.

To speak personally, I am not convinced O Sensei was actually that great of a teacher. I think we look at that aspect of O Sensei with rose-colored glasses. Largely, most of what we know as "aikido" was not developed or taught by O Sensei. Aikikai aikido was a product of his students. I don't think you can project a claim about O Sensei's teaching onto the Aikikai because he did not do Aikikai aikido. I think O Sensei was focused on learning aiki, I think several of his earlier students caught his coat tails and followed his path with some success. I think the number of students catching his coat tails diminished as he grew older and less involved in teaching directly. It may be that many of his students transcended that glass ceiling simply because they were behind O Sensei when he broke through and inspired by how he broke through.

I think O Sensei transcended the ability to teach aiki. I call the phenomenon "Shihan syndrome". At an elevated level of training, individuals lose the ability to understand what teaching best communicates what they do on a basic level. You can use any body skill as an analogy: breathing, walking, swimming, riding a bike, walking on stilts. Learning the skill is difficult. Once mastered, relating how to learn the skill is difficult. The other night we were working out with Dan Messisco and he was talking about "just being you". Unfortunately, "just being me" isn't a 6th dan who's been training for 50 years. But for him, he is really "just being him" so the instruction makes sense [to him].

I think it is likely an Ueshiba felt some exercises did not belong in aikido. But probably Kisshomaru Ueshiba was the individual who altered the training since he was the head of the dojo. As a point of wild speculation there was a period of tension between Morihei Ueshiba and Takeda during which Morihei may have been chastised for openly sharing aiki. If this did happen and O Sensei did acquiesce to Takeda's request to constrict his instruction it is possible that O Sensei altered his instruction. I think the idea that aikido did not contain aiki, or was somehow not part of the art is probably inaccurate at best. Hidden in Plain Sight is a good read that looks at the idea of aiki and its relationship between Daito Ryu and Aikido. Of course, if you don't believe in the universal concept of aiki (i.e. that it exists in not only the named Japanese arts, but also the Chinese and Indian arts), then aiki is unique to aikido and inherently not the same aiki as found in the other arts.

I think you need to separate O Sensei from aikido. O Sensei did not teach what we do in aikido. I think you need to separate O Sensei's aiki from aikido aiki. O Sensei's aiki is not what we do today. But, then we're back to separating aiki from aikido. Read one of many articles from the various Aikido Journal permutations and you'll read most of O Sensei's students fessing up to only getting a portion of what O Sensei was trying to teach. I think this is a strong argument for laying down some of the transmission issues at the feet of those students who later lead aikido instruction. Many of O Sensei's earlier students received instruction in what should be considered a hybridized Daito Ryu instruction that was flavored by Ueshiba (not "aikido"). I think this is integral for understanding that O Sensei's teaching methodology varied and could explain several success/failure stories that emerged from Hombu.

Cliff Judge wrote: So are you saying that Ueshiba transmitted a formal method of training internal power to his uchi deshi, was clear with them that this was to be an integral part of Aikido, and then they refused to teach it to their own students? I am saying that he never transmitted a formal method of training internal power to his students, because if he had, they'd have all transmitted it to us. And since no formal method was transmitted - either he didn't care or he never figured anything out that was an effective way to teach, or he thought that normal paired training of waza would be sufficient - then it isn't really part of Aikido. Certainly if you like IP training it can be a wonderful thing to cross train in, and a great part of your own practice.

There would be no argument that his later uchi-deshi were taught a modified aikido without the internal principles and method -- particularly the coterie of young deshi who would be sent out into the world as missionaries of Aikikai. But, it appears that many of M. Ueshiba's earlier students received at least some internal transmission, albeit in varying degrees. That is consistent with the way in which that body of training has traditionally been transmitted, though,

What a crazy place we have gotten to.

Cliff Judge wrote: So are you saying that Ueshiba transmitted a formal method of training internal power to his uchi deshi, was clear with them that this was to be an integral part of Aikido, and then they refused to teach it to their own students? I am saying that he never transmitted a formal method of training internal power to his students, because if he had, they'd have all transmitted it to us.

I am specifically questioning your claim that "the practitioners today who are highly skilled all discovered their skills on their own."

I am also pushing back against the claim that either Ueshiba or his students had knowledge which they "refused" to teach.

Certainly there are issues in the transmission from Ueshiba down to us. And of course Ueshiba has been dead for 45 years; I would be shocked if his direct students hadn't refined their understanding since then.

But I don't think we have enough information to say whether there was a deliberate decision not to teach certain topics, or whether those topics are simply hard to teach or learn and therefore not always transmitted successfully.

Katherine

Cliff Judge wrote: So are you saying that Ueshiba transmitted a formal method of training internal power to his uchi deshi, was clear with them that this was to be an integral part of Aikido, and then they refused to teach it to their own students? I am saying that he never transmitted a formal method of training internal power to his students, because if he had, they'd have all transmitted it to us. And since no formal method was transmitted - either he didn't care or he never figured anything out that was an effective way to teach, or he thought that normal paired training of waza would be sufficient - then it isn't really part of Aikido. Certainly if you like IP training it can be a wonderful thing to cross train in, and a great part of your own practice.

"Sensei, what can we do to train internal power?" "Stand in hanmi, open yourself in 6 directions and enter into a tree. Practice this 2 hours each day.""Umm... What? Sensei, is there another way that we can train the power you have?" "Yes. Stand under a waterfall and purify yourself. Open yourself to the gods and maintain motion in your stillness. You must do this ever morning before your chores." "Umm...What?"

First, I think you need to look at the strong probability that Ueshiba taught internal power indirectly at least. With that indirect education, it is also probable that his students experienced his training. Did those students later think, "I think I am going to cut out the 'stand under the waterfall' exercise. That seems a little crazy..."?

Second, I think you need to look at the strong probability that Ueshiba taught internal power explicitly for a least a period of time (closer to his DRA instruction). Many of our exercises like tori fune, sayo undo, hasso undo and the like all have connections to other internal power exercises. Just because we don't do the exercises the way O Sensei intended does not mean he did not want us to train.

I think, in all liklihood, many of Ueshiba's students culled out those exercises they perceived not to be effective learning tools (whether they were exposed by indirect or direct means). It is certainly as plausible of reasoning as "he didn't care," which I do not believe is either true or even an accurate guess. I would also argue that the liklihood the existence of aiki in aikido can be presented as a binocular (i.e. he either didn't care or didn't intend) argument is inaccurate.

Third, I think the claim one of his students who possessed aiki would have passed down the instruction is also flawed because possession of knowledge is not synonymous with transmission of knowledge. It is possible that one or more students could do aiki but did not transmit it to others.

Some time back Aikikai removed weapons from aikido. O Sensei used weapons. Many of O Sensei's senior people used weapons. Can we assume those seniors transmitted weapons training to us? Are we to assume because it is not part of the Aikikai curriculum that Aikido never used weapons? Did O Sensei not care if we used weapons, or did he not intend for us to use weapons?

There is a forensic process for looking why something left our curriculum. I think the argument you hear from IP folk is that IP training is not cross-training - it is aiki training. Rather, aikido that does not have IP is excluding a piece of curriculum. I think those same folks are looking at the why and coming up with some interesting reasons as to why that curriculum component left aikido.

Jon Reading wrote: "Sensei, what can we do to train internal power?" "Stand in hanmi, open yourself in 6 directions and enter into a tree. Practice this 2 hours each day.""Umm... What? Sensei, is there another way that we can train the power you have?" "Yes. Stand under a waterfall and purify yourself. Open yourself to the gods and maintain motion in your stillness. You must do this ever morning before your chores." "Umm...What?"

This brings up an important point, namely that it's pretty clear that Ueshiba saw his aikido as inseparable from his spiritual practice. This would have created yet more obstacles for students who did not share his beliefs. If a particular practice was seen as a "spiritual" rather than a "martial" exercise, its significance could easily have been lost.

Katherine

FWIW:

Peter Goldsbury wrote: So I believe that Kisshomaru Ueshiba also taught and demonstrated 'kihon waza', but he was well aware, and the present Doshu is also well aware, that such waza constitute only a small part of the total art. It seems to me that there is a broad division between what is 'officially' taught at the Hombu and what is taught elsewhere, including Iwama and local dojos like the one here in Hiroshima. When I came here, I was surprised to encounter very interesting waza that I had not seen before and sometimes discussed this with the senior yudansha here: at some point the discussion usually mentioned Daito-ryu, the Takumakai, and what Morihei Ueshiba taught in Osaka. I have asked Doshu and other Hombu teachers whether Morihei Ueshiba did IP training and the answer was yes, but with the rider that he never taught it: he left this type of training to students who perceived it and wanted to do it. The corollary was (is) that this type of training should be a complement to one's 'kihon' training, but not a substitute for it.

Peter Goldsbury wrote: [. . . T]he Hombu instructor with whom I have discussed these issues the most is Hiroshi Tada. Like Tohei, H Tada was a student of Tempu Nakamura, but he seems to have been very careful as to what he taught in the Hombu and what he taught in his own dojo and in Italy. In other words, he seems to have accepted the idea that only certain things were to be taught or practiced in the Hombu, but also that the other things were to be practiced elsewhere. He teaches weapons in Italy, but never in the Hombu, and when I mentioned some details of a certain jo kata that I practiced in Italy to another Hombu instructor, he was very curious and wondered where Tada had learned it. Like other older Hombu instructors, Tada sets great store by solo training exercises and these seem to consist mainly of kokyu exercises of increasing sophistication and complexity. But he has never taught anything like pushing hands etc and I suspect that the occasion for seeing the results of all this kokyu training would be in basic aikido waza, like shoumen-uchi 1-kyou. This issue for me is which bit of Tada's training comes from Nakamura and which bit from Ueshiba -- and whether he could make such a distinction. Add to this Ellis Amdur's theory of Ueshiba's use of his students as ‘crash-test dummies' and you also have to entertain the possibility that he showed different things to different students -- and he showed this by having them take ukemi. You also have to entertain the possibility that the skills that Ueshiba possessed which could be interpreted as IP skills could be acquired by Ueshiba's students in various ways, but not necessarily from Ueshiba himself by a direct transmission. [. . .] One of the yudansha who trains with the group I look after in the Netherlands attends the workshops of Dan Harden and Minoru Akuzawa when they come to Europe. His aikido comes from another source, of course, but on one occasion a senior Hombu instructor stopped and asked him, "Why are you so strong?" The question was not meant in a negative sense at all and he was not talking about physical strength. The instructor knew exactly what he was seeing and I believe the older generation of instructors in Japan also know this. But [. . .] this knowledge is clandestine and limited to individuals. These individuals are in the Aikikai, but are dwindling in number. [. . .] I think Doshu is an active exponent of a certain interpretation of iemoto, but the great danger here is that aikido is not a koryu and does not have kata in the sense understood in a koryu. There is a sense that the waza can be seen as vehicles for the expression of creativity and this, to my mind, is what Morihei Ueshiba meant by Takemusu Aiki. He always showed waza, as did Takeda Sokaku, but seems to have presented them slightly differently to different deshi. So creativity can be understood in many ways. Unlike the present generation of Japanese martial arts exponents, Morihei Ueshiba also read the Chinese classics and was familiar with all the texts that are the foundation of Chinese internal arts. Recently I came across a scholarly work on yin-yang and its place in Chinese thought and culture. Even a quick read was enough to show that this is a complex and multi-faceted concept. We all know the question that a student asked Morihei Ueshiba and his answer, citing the knowledge of yin and yang. Ueshiba did not give any further explanation and left it to the students to grasp what he meant. The point is that he was probably familiar with the whole breadth and depth of the concept, but his students did not share this familiarity.

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: I am specifically questioning your claim that "the practitioners today who are highly skilled all discovered their skills on their own." I am also pushing back against the claim that either Ueshiba or his students had knowledge which they "refused" to teach. Certainly there are issues in the transmission from Ueshiba down to us. And of course Ueshiba has been dead for 45 years; I would be shocked if his direct students hadn't refined their understanding since then. But I don't think we have enough information to say whether there was a deliberate decision not to teach certain topics, or whether those topics are simply hard to teach or learn and therefore not always transmitted successfully. Katherine

I think the elephant in the living room is the split that happened when Tohei left. I don't know for sure but it seems like that Ki development stopped being taught at a lot of dojos and it was thought that it would come just by training.

It does not seem to be true. It seems like many aikido students are seeking a different way.

Mary Eastland wrote: I think the elephant in the living room is the split that happened when Tohei left. I don't know for sure but it seems like that Ki development stopped being taught at a lot of dojos and it was thought that it would come just by training.

I don't know if I'd call it an elephant. My understanding is that disagreements about ki instruction were one of the stated reasons for the split, and I'm not privy to any particularly closely held information.

However, it's too simplistic to claim, as some have, that the Tohei branch preserved ki development while the Ueshiba branch did not. Individual teachers had far more complex reasons for landing on whichever side of the split they did. Nor is it clear whether the teachers on either side of the split were any more capable of transmitting this information. (With the possible exception of Tohei himself.)

Katherine

Our teacher was perfectly capable of transmitting the information as are we.

The reason why i called it the elephant was pretty much explained by your response. Nobody wants to say it out loud. It is okay

People wouldn't be seeking it outside of aikido if it was taught in mainstream Aikido.

Mary Eastland wrote: Our teacher was perfectly capable of transmitting the information as are we. The reason why i called it the elephant was pretty much explained by your response. Nobody wants to say it out loud. It is okay People wouldn't be seeking it outside of aikido if it was taught in mainstream Aikido.

With a million plus aikido practitioners, I think it's safe to say that there is an enormous variation in "mainstream" aikido.

My experience with Tohei-style aikido is extremely limited, but did not lead me to believe that the Tohei branch is a repository of knowledge not found in the Ueshiba branch.

Katherine

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: IMy understanding is that disagreements about ki instruction were one of the stated reasons for the split, ...

Other students of Ueshiba were also members of the Tempukai. Tada sensei - 9th dan today and I think one of the best known teachers of the aikikai - being one of them.
Endô sensei sometimes states, that the teachings of Tempu Nakamura were present and were transmitted by many of his sempai, when he entered hombu. (Btw. his first teacher at all was Tada sensei. And Tohei sensei was one of his favorite teachers at hombu.)

Teachers like Tada sensei taught Shin shin toitsu do in their own dôjô. But they did not try to replace the teachings of Ueshiba with the teachings of Tempu in the official curriculum of hombu. The ki no renma of Tada sensei is directly taken from Tempukai and Ichikukai, as is the teaching of Tohei sensei. But Tada sensei just taught it privately and did not try to establish it as official teachning of the aikikai hombu.

So I think, it was all not about a disagreement of ki, but about a disagreemaent of instruction.
To me the conflict allways seemed to be more about loyalty and family affairs - think of the familiary relation of Tohei and Ueshiba Kisshomaru - than about substantial aspects of teaching.

My experience with Tohei-style aikido is extremely limited, but did not lead me to believe that the Tohei branch is a repository of knowledge not found in the Ueshiba branch.

Surely not!
Your assumption is true for the same reason: It was not only Tohei sensei who practiced the Shin shin toitsu dô of Tempu and connected that to the aikidô of Ueshiba. There were a lot of students and teachers at the aikikai who did exactly the same.
It was only that Tohei sensei more and more left some aspects behind, that could be found in Ueshibas budô and created Shin shin toitsu aikidô, until he would say: "Now my aikido consists of about thirty percent Ueshiba Sensei’s techniques and seventy percent my own."

Mary Eastland wrote: People wouldn't be seeking it outside of aikido if it was taught in mainstream Aikido.

When it was Ueshiba Morihei who was the mainstream, there was - among others - one of his students went to seek outside of what Ueshiba taught. He found the Tempukai and a method called "Shin shin toitsu dô" which he practiced with great emphasis. He said: "While I was with Ueshiba Sensei I was also studying under Tempu Nakamura. It was he who first taught me that 'the mind moves the body.' "

On the other hand, those of who you think they would "seek outside" often claim to do exactly the opposite, i.e. to try to get nearer to the original core of the teachings of Uehsiba. Realizing by that, that aiki is part of other arts aswell. Which Ueshiba obviously knew and stated in his texts.
So it is him who leads those who want to get nearer to him, to daoist teachings, traditions of koryû and even Chinese arts.

was going to stay out of this, but i got suck in and couldn't help meself. i know, i need serious professional help.

since we are sort of discussing the teaching/learning model, i thought i would throw in my thoughts. in asia, in the old day, most teacher and student relationships were very personal. most martial arts schools tend to be small, a handful of students practicing in the backyard of the said teacher's home. my experiences that the teacher decided what to teach to which student. all of the student were taught the same basic stuffs. however, the teacher decided which portition of his curriculum to emphasis depend heavily on the student attitude and inclination. depend on the student, the teacher might not even teach certain things. sometimes it was because the particular student isn't ready. can't teach calculus if the student can't do basic algebra or multiplication. so the teaching curriculum was very customized per student. you can do this when you only have a handful of students; can't do it with larger group.

picture this if you would. Ueshiba Sr. had a few students to start out with and the above customized teaching/learning model worked great. then the thing took off and got popular where now he had a lot more students. customization teaching/learning approach wouldn't work. so, if you were in his place, what would you do? you started with the common denominator, i.e. the lowest level of common and teached everyone the same thing (sounded like the US education isn't it?). no more customization, no more personal attention, because you don't have all the time in the world. however, maybe you might put in a hybrid approach. you still allowed a few dedicated students for personalization and the rest, just open to the public and got the common stuffs. and those few students you called uchi-deshi. the customization was still there, because these specific students could only learn a certain things from you, but not all the same.

so then those few students, that got personal attention and teaching, went out on their own. they carried the teaching that they got, again with a very personal type of curriculum. then a few generations down the road, you got a mass of students that learned from various uchi-deshi and theirs. those original customization carried through the generations. so here we are, students of various original Ueshiba Sr. students with various levels of customization arguing which are the best/better approaches to Ueshiba Sr.'s aikido. blind mices and elephant? sum and parts? chicken and eggs? steak and salad? beer and wine?

here is another thought. thinking about what i said above about the common denominator and apply that same logic to aikikai. for parallel reference, use the current U.S. education as reference.

Carsten Möllering wrote: So I think, it was all not about a disagreement of ki, but about a disagreemaent of instruction. To me the conflict allways seemed to be more about loyalty and family affairs - think of the familiary relation of Tohei and Ueshiba Kisshomaru - than about substantial aspects of teaching.

Oh, I agree. I just didn't think opening that particular can of worms was relevant to the thread.

Katherine

Cliff Judge wrote: I am not so sure about "through the ages." You make it sound like "metaphor-based tanren models" for developing internal power existed outside of Daito ryu. There is scant evidence for that, and multitudes of commonsense reasons why it is unlikely. Not the least of which is your assertion that it is "quite a successful way to transfer very complex knowledge and body skills."

Would you care to explain this further in light of people like Tetsuzan Kuroda and the whole body of chinese martial arts or japanese martial arts influenced by chinese martial arts?

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: Would you care to explain this further in light of people like Tetsuzan Kuroda and the whole body of chinese martial arts or japanese martial arts influenced by chinese martial arts?

Sure if I can remember wtf i was talking about in that conversation. First of all, I should have specified Japanese martial arts because tanren based metaphor models is probably an apt description of tai chi, bagua, and all of the Taoist civilian systems that focus on solo forms. But I don't practice any Chinese arts and don't know for sure.

Secondly, I could have been making assumptions about what Mert was referring to that were wrong - you could be doing the same thing now. Pretty sure I inferred that he was saying that aiki is a body skill that is trained by solo methods and has been transmitted in secrecy for thousands of years from the Indian subcontinent.

One of the riffs in my personal broken record is that "Aiki" is a term that doesn't have much history before Takeda came along. Another one is that solo training for "internal power" is not a notable feature of classical Japanese martial arts, nor was it an integral part of Daito ryu or Aikido.

Kuroda is an interesting guy, from what I have seen his movement is incredible, and from what I have heard he has reconstructed most of what he teaches. I don't think there is any reason to believe that his skills are the product of an unbroken, hidden legacy that has spanned the ages, and I couldn't tell you whether they use a tanden metaphor model.

From here it seems that perhaps "Kuroda sensei does not use the word aiki. When this word was becoming popular his grandfather Yasuji felt that all jujitsu should be that subtle and there was no need for a word to describe it."

And from here it may be that Shishin Takuma-ryu Jujutsu "is a classically-based system of jujutsu taught through many 2-man katas."

So maybe there's some support for my viewpoint there? I dunno.

I may have been introduced to the idea that his systems have mostly been reconstructed by him from one of his students, and I apologize for hearsay evidence if that matters.

(Not that it should have any bearing on this discussion, because I can't verify it myself, but i swear to god I read a thread on this board, at some point, where somebody said that Kuroda had actually done some of his reconstruction research with an Aikidoka of noteable skill.)

To Cliff's points, I can't speak for any koryu regarding the presence of solo training (though at one time I recall on some online board Toby Threadgill mentioning that there are a specific set of waza/exercises in his branch of Shindo Yoshin-ryu that would qualify as IP-tanren, though I don't recall him stating what the underlying operating system is for those).

Most folks are aikido practitioners here, and I'm a Hakkoryu guy: both arts come from Daito-ryu, within which certain lineages have a Taoist foundation for tanren (various "in-yo-ho": e.g. Sagawa-den, mainline). Both arts are very Japanese, heavily steeped for example in Shinto; yet, the founders of both arts paid homage to Chinese philosophy as essential to their respective "ways".

Cliff Judge wrote: Thanks. Yes, of course, we'll take their silence on the matter to be their complete and utter agreement with you.

Yup. He in fact did. Even gave a talk concerning aiki and aikido (稽古産新), that was recorded and transcribed and I have translated sitting in the can, so to speak. As I described it to Stan Pranin when we spoke about it at one time, "Apparently someone was listening when Ueshiba was talking and seems to have understood what was being said."

I might even put it out there some day when the time is right and if people aren't behaving like complete assholes. Unfortunately, with the state of discourse as it is these days it would fare about as well as Ueshiba's recorded teaching in my opinion. So not now and don't ask.

Mert Gambito wrote: To Cliff's points, I can't speak for any koryu regarding the presence of solo training

Iaijutsu.

Doug Walker wrote: Yup. He in fact did. Even gave a talk concerning aiki and aikido (稽古産新), that was recorded and transcribed and I have translated sitting in the can, so to speak. As I described it to Stan Pranin when we spoke about it at one time, "Apparently someone was listening when Ueshiba was talking and seems to have understood what was being said." I might even put it out there some day when the time is right and if people aren't behaving like complete assholes. Unfortunately, with the state of discourse as it is these days it would fare about as well as Ueshiba's recorded teaching in my opinion. So not now and don't ask.

Ahem:

Lao Tzu wrote: "The sage does not hoard. The more he helps others, the more he benefits himself, The more he gives to others, the more he gets himself. The Way of Heaven does one good but never does one harm. The Way of the sage is to act but not to compete."

René Esemann wrote: Iaijutsu.

Esoteric Buddhism, actually, over time simply becoming a combative training that addressed the needs of peacetime bushi to learn how to handle their sidearms.

Doug Walker wrote: Yup. He in fact did. Even gave a talk concerning aiki and aikido (稽古産新), that was recorded and transcribed and I have translated sitting in the can, so to speak. As I described it to Stan Pranin when we spoke about it at one time, "Apparently someone was listening when Ueshiba was talking and seems to have understood what was being said." I might even put it out there some day when the time is right and if people aren't behaving like complete assholes. Unfortunately, with the state of discourse as it is these days it would fare about as well as Ueshiba's recorded teaching in my opinion. So not now and don't ask.

Do I count as more than one asshole?

I am only on here and e-budo BTW. There is probably a better venue for you if you want an audience that thinks homogenously.

Mert Gambito wrote: To Cliff's points, I can't speak for any koryu regarding the presence of solo training (though at one time I recall on some online board Toby Threadgill mentioning that there are a specific set of waza/exercises in his branch of Shindo Yoshin-ryu that would qualify as IP-tanren, though I don't recall him stating what the underlying operating system is for those). Most folks are aikido practitioners here, and I'm a Hakkoryu guy: both arts come from Daito-ryu, within which certain lineages have a Taoist foundation for tanren (various "in-yo-ho": e.g. Sagawa-den, mainline). Both arts are very Japanese, heavily steeped for example in Shinto; yet, the founders of both arts paid homage to Chinese philosophy as essential to their respective "ways".

Mert, I can't find anything to disagree with here, but I think the claims you are making in this post are very general. Japanese culture in general is very steeped in Shinto and pays homage to Chinese philosophy etc.

I have this feeling that Sagawa is the one responsible for the entire solo training in DR concept, as well as any heavily Taoist technology. I do believe these were his innovations and the result of his research.