Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > General

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-31-2011, 09:19 PM   #101
Ellis Amdur
 
Ellis Amdur's Avatar
Location: Seattle
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 879
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

Oh heck - here we go. Nothing will be accomplished if we go down that road again.

I started the thread. Here's the needle

  Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2011, 09:25 PM   #102
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
You called a bet and stated your assertion.

You placed the bet. I'll call it.
Where does this new gem come from? Unless you're talking out of your hat, state your argument for such a ridiculous comment.
Tell me of a report by a contemporary outside expert that paints Takeda in as glowing terms as reports by people involved in D.R. and Aikido. Was Takeda invited to demonstrate in front of the Emperor? If you can't counter those simple questions then my bet/opinion is not without some foundation. It's fairly common in martial-arts for the followers/loyalists of a style to tell glowing stories that are sometimes embellished, but it's seldom that you have someone like, for instance, Sun LuTang of whom many people on the outside of his arts acknowledge his skills and deeds.

In Sun LuTang's case and in many others, there's a difference between impressing real experts as opposed to impressing the impressionable.

Another example might be Chen Yuan Yun, aka Chen Gempin: we know because there is a record in "Conversations with the Ancients" Part II, that he did something very impressive ("brought 'ju' to Japan"), so something notable happened. If the record exalting Chen Yuan Yun was mainly by the followers of his style, etc., a reasonable question could be raised about exactly how good/knowledgeable, etc., he was. Ipso facto. You may disagree, but show me the record from outside.

Mike Sigman

Last edited by Mike Sigman : 07-31-2011 at 09:27 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2011, 10:24 PM   #103
Ellis Amdur
 
Ellis Amdur's Avatar
Location: Seattle
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 879
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

OK, Mike - one thing is that very prominent members - instrucrtors - of other ryu, such as Yagyu Shingan-ryu and Yagyu Shinkage-ryu, to give only two examples, signed up as Takeda's student. In this period, one only signed up as a student - publicly - when one truly recognized the worth of the other. I'd have to dig through the accounts, but there's quite a few other references to top level martial arts practitioners, who also became members.

Takeda, along with Yoshida Kotaro, were the only two outside people invited to a meeting of the top Yoshin-ryu jujutsu shihan to discuss how to meet the challenge to their existence presented by judo.

For Ueshiba, off the top of my head, Konishi, one of the top founders of a Japanese karate system in the 1930's called Ueshiba a teacher, and Jun-ichi Haga, the absolutely ferocious champion of the emperor's cup in kendo and a master level teacher in iaido stated that Ueshiba was the greatest swordsman in Japan. I'm also aware, in the case of Ueshiba, of some who demurred.

Egami, perhaps the most innovative teacher in the Shotokan world (who had that which was closest to internal type training, stated that he learned it all from Inoue, Ueshiba's nephew).

(I knew how great Wang Shu Chin was when I travelled to Taiwan and every teacher I met who wanted to prove to me how powerful they were stated that they'd beaten Wang. He "lost" so many times!).

I've actually got no dog in the fight that Takeda was the greatest of his time. How could one know. I can think of others who very possibly surpassed him. Or not. But there is no doubt that the respect he had extended far beyond the sectarian group of DR.

OK - now i don't know if this thread has run it's course, but the subject has been hidden in plain sight skills and pedagogy. Shall we return to that?

Ellis

  Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2011, 10:33 PM   #104
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

Quote:
Ellis Amdur wrote: View Post
I've actually got no dog in the fight that Takeda was the greatest of his time. How could one know.
Exactly.

Quote:
I can think of others who very possibly surpassed him. Or not. But there is no doubt that the respect he had extended far beyond the sectarian group of DR.

OK - now i don't know if this thread has run it's course, but the subject has been hidden in plain sight skills and pedagogy. Shall we return to that?
Fair enough, but my original thesis was in relation to how well or how rarely these skills were passed on. While Takeda was an exemplar (particularly among Aikido or similar arts), what I'm suggesting is that there was actually a lot more "aiki" around Japan at the time (and even now, if you look at various DVD's being offered in Japan) than we're allowing for with a Takeda-centered perspective. If I'm correct, then a valid question can be debated about how difficult or how infrequently these things were passed on. Maybe it's not such a forlorn hope as is being posited.

FWIW

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2011, 10:55 PM   #105
DH
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,394
United_States
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

I greatly enjoy these discussion looking at the who, where, why, what, and when "it" might have been taught and where evidence might be found through terminology and concepts.

Among these discussions there is a logic fallacy in play that continues to go unaddressed and hurts the argument. We have white guys making a case that foreigners didn't get it, then they proceed to make a case that they of course got it and know more than most in the martial arts. How'd that happen?

How do any of you see discussions of these unprovable assertions that the Chinese methods are superior to the Japanese methods as positive, while attempting to drive home a point that that "this stuff was everywhere in Asia" and so many of the methods are basic, common and known. The argument makes no sense. Now one of the stellar examples that we look to for "IT"...weren't really much and made up to profit someone?

This doesn't serve any useful purpose that I can see, nor forward the tenants of the discussions typically embraced in the Hidden in Plain Sight talks. Clearly, I don't embrace it or leave it unchallenged. I don't really care who had said it. It just happened to be Mike.

As far as how common these skills were; the oft quoted Kunishige stated that these skills were extremely rare, rather than common. It had nothing to do with sharing with foreigners. In the same book it is pointed out that the Judoka asked Kanos kid, who differentiated, and pointed out a 6th dan who used dantian, and could not be thrown. If I recall correctly (I have the entry somewhere) one of the Yagyu soke returned with students to train under Takeda as well. I am not sure why we are repeating how many budoka met him and were actually afraid or in awe of him ut there were many. I don't see how the Chinese equivalant has any more merit.
Dan

Last edited by DH : 07-31-2011 at 11:07 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2011, 11:29 PM   #106
Ellis Amdur
 
Ellis Amdur's Avatar
Location: Seattle
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 879
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

Mike - your point is well taken that IT was surely elsewhere within JAPAN. But my point is a) it was very rare at the turn of the century onwards (when E.J. Harrison asked about it at the Kodokan, among all the stellar guys, many of whom came from other jujutsu ryu, they could only mention one guy - Nango Jiro). Mifune, Yamashita, all the others gods of judo were not cited - only one guy - and this in Meiji. Kunishige, a jujutsu man whom Harrison mentioned, did not leave an extant line. This is the real problem - a lot of lines that had it simply died. b) of those who retained it, if they are koryu - and that is most likely - they are closed and sectarian, and thanks to the 2nd world war, a lot of the strong stalwarts died and ryu records were incinerated. There is a huge gap there, I think one more significant that even affected the Chinese due to the Cultural Revolution. (I appear to have cross-posted some of the same info in this paragraph as Dan H. above)

Thus, we owe Takeda a huge debt that he chose to go public. Whether he was the best or not, he almost alone was presenting this publicly at the turn of the twentieth century - and so remarkable he was that there was a newspaper article written about him, whether the reporter went to Hokkaido like some documentarian going to the Amazon, the article entitled "Ima Benkei," as I recall - "Modern Day Benkei," the implication being that here we had a figure out of legend, much like saying "Modern Day Achilles." All extant accounts describe him in similar terms to Tung Hai Chuan walking down the street in modern Shanghai, or George Washington appearing today to participate in modern politics. In the Japanese bujutsu world, he was a solitary exemplar (even if there may well have been others who were not only not teaching foreigners (Takeda did, btw, teach an American), but not teaching many Japanese either.

Given my particular love is koryu bujutsu. DR and aikido have been of interest to me because they were the only game in town, an explicit study of something most bujutsu in Japan had lost. Even though I've never had interest in DR as a martial art, and my interest in aikido in that vein was a long time ago, I certainly was interested at what these arts promised.

What I have discovered is that the application of qijin/aiki within koryu kata activates the waza in an incredible way (and my skills in this area are "scratch the surface" level). IT seems to fit so seamlessly within two koryu that I practice, two that are VERy different - that it is convincing to me that one-upon-a-time, they were much more common. And they were clearly lost or abandoned by most schools - or only a whisper remains. DR and aikido have been, in so far as most people have access, the only route within Japanese martial arts that one could have possible access, or even discourse about these skills.

Now, at this late date, it is reappearing, but in some traditions opening up on what they know, and others, like myself, attempting to incorporate "generic" information to revitalize schools where it was lost long ago.

Regarding "merit" of Chinese vs. Japanese sources - I think we must return to the issue of pedagogy. There is a tremendous level of b.s. in chinese martial arts as well (after all, b.s. and martial arts are hand-and-glove), but what the Chinese at their best offer is a very comprehensive language to describe IT and a lot of instruction on how to develop it. DR is largely inaccessible - and to be frank, most of the DR lines do not emphasize or study IT any more than aikido today does. It is very difficult to get access to DR training methodology. (all aside from do they teach foreigners or not).

I'm not in a position to make any assertions as to the comprehensive nature of DR aiki vs., say, Dai family xinyi. But I do think it is true that if one wanted to study IT, it would be easier - today - to find a teacher in China/Taiwan who would teach the skills in a methodical fashion than in Japan, at least if we are speaking about classical arts.

Best
Ellis Amdur

Ellis Amdur

Last edited by Ellis Amdur : 07-31-2011 at 11:37 PM.

  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 06:49 AM   #107
Dennis Hooker
Dojo: Shindai Dojo, Orlando Fl.
Location: Orlando Florida
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 456
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

When I was in math classes at the university I was more interested in the results than the process. So I learned how to apply the formulas to get the results I desired I never took the time, or had the interest, to understand how the formulas worked a lot like many in budo. However when it came to Aikido and other budo I had a deep interest in how the formulas worked so I seek to understand by all means available to me. I am not just interested in applying the formula to fell the other person, but was and am more interested in how that came to be. By doing this I believe I am gaining a deeper understanding of my chosen arts than those that chose to just apply the formula to get the results. Of course I sought to save my life at the same time and those lessons learned by understanding the formulas and sometimes expand them lets me work and help other people with neuromuscular diseases and those who want to learn Aikido.

Just my 2 cents

Dennis Hooker: (DVD) Zanshin and Ma-ai in Aikido
https://www.createspace.com/238049

www.shindai.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 07:29 AM   #108
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

Quote:
Ellis Amdur wrote: View Post
Mike - your point is well taken that IT was surely elsewhere within JAPAN. But my point is a) it was very rare at the turn of the century onwards (when E.J. Harrison asked about it at the Kodokan, among all the stellar guys, many of whom came from other jujutsu ryu, they could only mention one guy - Nango Jiro). Mifune, Yamashita, all the others gods of judo were not cited - only one guy - and this in Meiji. Kunishige, a jujutsu man whom Harrison mentioned, did not leave an extant line. This is the real problem - a lot of lines that had it simply died. b) of those who retained it, if they are koryu - and that is most likely - they are closed and sectarian, and thanks to the 2nd world war, a lot of the strong stalwarts died and ryu records were incinerated. There is a huge gap there, I think one more significant that even affected the Chinese due to the Cultural Revolution. (I appear to have cross-posted some of the same info in this paragraph as Dan H. above)

Thus, we owe Takeda a huge debt that he chose to go public. Whether he was the best or not, he almost alone was presenting this publicly at the turn of the twentieth century - and so remarkable he was that there was a newspaper article written about him, whether the reporter went to Hokkaido like some documentarian going to the Amazon, the article entitled "Ima Benkei," as I recall - "Modern Day Benkei," the implication being that here we had a figure out of legend, much like saying "Modern Day Achilles." All extant accounts describe him in similar terms to Tung Hai Chuan walking down the street in modern Shanghai, or George Washington appearing today to participate in modern politics. In the Japanese bujutsu world, he was a solitary exemplar (even if there may well have been others who were not only not teaching foreigners (Takeda did, btw, teach an American), but not teaching many Japanese either.

Given my particular love is koryu bujutsu. DR and aikido have been of interest to me because they were the only game in town, an explicit study of something most bujutsu in Japan had lost. Even though I've never had interest in DR as a martial art, and my interest in aikido in that vein was a long time ago, I certainly was interested at what these arts promised.

What I have discovered is that the application of qijin/aiki within koryu kata activates the waza in an incredible way (and my skills in this area are "scratch the surface" level). IT seems to fit so seamlessly within two koryu that I practice, two that are VERy different - that it is convincing to me that one-upon-a-time, they were much more common. And they were clearly lost or abandoned by most schools - or only a whisper remains. DR and aikido have been, in so far as most people have access, the only route within Japanese martial arts that one could have possible access, or even discourse about these skills.

Now, at this late date, it is reappearing, but in some traditions opening up on what they know, and others, like myself, attempting to incorporate "generic" information to revitalize schools where it was lost long ago.

Regarding "merit" of Chinese vs. Japanese sources - I think we must return to the issue of pedagogy. There is a tremendous level of b.s. in chinese martial arts as well (after all, b.s. and martial arts are hand-and-glove), but what the Chinese at their best offer is a very comprehensive language to describe IT and a lot of instruction on how to develop it. DR is largely inaccessible - and to be frank, most of the DR lines do not emphasize or study IT any more than aikido today does. It is very difficult to get access to DR training methodology. (all aside from do they teach foreigners or not).

I'm not in a position to make any assertions as to the comprehensive nature of DR aiki vs., say, Dai family xinyi. But I do think it is true that if one wanted to study IT, it would be easier - today - to find a teacher in China/Taiwan who would teach the skills in a methodical fashion than in Japan, at least if we are speaking about classical arts.
Hi Ellis:

I used to think that these kinds of skills were relegated to Aikido. By the time I realized that almost no one in Aikido who was accessible to me seemed to have any of these skills, I was already convinced that a better source was Taiji, which is why I shifted over to CMA's (couldn't care less about the style wars, Japan, China, etc.; that sort of stuff is for the idiots). Over time and exposure, what I thought was mainly something found in Taijiquan turned out to be, in various guises, in every CMA I encountered... *among the qualified people*.

Given the number of arts in Japan that are opening up and already have "aiki", "kokyu", and so on, my suspicion is that that same general thing holds true in Japan.... the amount of schools, etc., with that type of knowledge is greater than you'd know from a superficial observation. Hence my emphasis/opinion that I doubt the Takeda-Ueshiba line was all that critical .... except for the fact that it is the one that many westerners have focused on and the one which became popular among westerners (like the Hong YiXiang and Cheng Man Ching effect).

Kunishige, as an example, may have had his line die out, but in the interim he taught people (Nihonjin, though); point being that I wouldn't blithely assume that his information was simply lost.

The clues you mentioned in the O.P.... I wonder if those were actually clues or were merely indirect taunts to the students. As a teaching methodology it appeared to not be too good for long-term results. Add to that the extreme difficulty for most people to change from normal movement over to dantien-centric movement and yeah... not too many people get it. Even the ones who get something are usually still hindered because they quickly settle on hybrid (muscle-jin) results.

In short, I take your points and they're good ones, but I interpose the suggestion that these skills were widely enough available in Japan that on the whole the carry forward wasn't all that bad. It was just bad in the D.R.-Aikido carry forward and we tend to focus on what we know.

2 cents.

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 09:20 AM   #109
DH
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,394
United_States
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

Quote:
Ellis Amdur wrote: View Post
IT seems to fit so seamlessly within two koryu that I practice, two that are VERy different - that it is convincing to me that one-upon-a-time, they were much more common. And they were clearly lost or abandoned by most schools - or only a whisper remains. DR and aikido have been, in so far as most people have access, the only route within Japanese martial arts that one could have possible access, or even discourse about these skills.
Ellis Amdur
That is an interesting discussion, with some ramifications. Of course there is more to the differentiation between jin skills used to bolster a koryu's waza and koryu that have waza requiring it for those same kata to be more rational in execution.

There is certain defined movement in DR that Ueshiba also used (I haven't seen it in modern aikido) that is markedly different from any koryu jujutsu approach I have seen.
There are some weapons based Koryu that use that same movement and I seriously wonder how many see it strengthening them by default, (due to certain requirements), and how many know how to strengthen it by choice.

Internal training as the exception and not the norm
We have entertained discussions related to getting menkyo in six years, the pressure of readying for war, the evidence of stories of the "outlier" who went into the mountains and came back with unusual power, There is also evidence that there were some exercises and descriptions in scrolls that were ignored, and we also have the more common references we just used in the Meiji era, Where known powerhouses were rare, and when asked stated that few ever really got it.

There is no evidence of Kunishige being great, or that he taught anyone anything. There is no evidence of the use of IT in Judo. Remember again that in both of those references the parties involved stated flatly that few knew these things. It seems very odd to use those references that clearly state how unusual it was to make a case for it being the norm.

As far as a whole bunch of arts that claim aiki? On any other day certain people argue that “claims” are meaningless, So why use these "claims" as any evidence now?
These arts have yet to prove any capable understanding of it. As I stated, there are a few Koryu we know of that have certain things in their scrolls, yet those same sources state the same thing as Kunishige and Kanos son...few knew this or trained it.
So here you have adepts from a few schools among many who state that few if any trained this way.
All of this leaves me unconvinced that any of this was "all pervasive," "was everywhere" as a legitimate argument.

Chinese experts with lessor lights in Japan
In the modern era we have seen Chinese internal experts, who showed up and were successful against Japanese external martial artists. This means exactly what?

1. Has anyone entertained what would have happened had a Chinese internal expert met Takeda or Ueshiba?
2. How about if Takeda or Ueshiba had showed up to take on external artists in China? There were many.

The examples I have given over the years were for comparisons of the superiority of internal strength over normal strength and that is it. Stating this knowledge was everywhere then weakening your own argument by stating China has a deeper understanding is no argument at all. There is no evidence to support an argument of Chinese internal experts as superior to Japanese internal experts. There is no qualifier to prove it is so. No one knows the fullness of the knowledge of the Japanese experts to the Chinese experts nor their practical applicability.

Again I suggest people step back and think. Clearly some of these arguments are poorly constructed or developed. They don't survive even a cursory examination .

Dan

Last edited by DH : 08-01-2011 at 09:24 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 10:26 AM   #110
Ellis Amdur
 
Ellis Amdur's Avatar
Location: Seattle
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 879
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

Dan - I think you are simultaneously discussing points with me and Mike here. Just to differentiate my perspective. I don't think such skills were ever "the norm." I simply think that variants of such study were once far more common, and I believe I have made a fair essay at establishing this in chapter 1 of HIPS. (or we have more concrete evidence - that Shindo Yoshin-ryu had a curriculum of study of IT, (nairiki), with roots back to China, and this was the most widespread jujutsu ryu in Japan pre-judo. Of course, this does not mean that every Yoshin-ryu practitioner had any level of skill. It was surely rare, among other reasons, because something you quote ""Aiki requires an enormous amount of solo training. Only amateurs think that techniques are enough. They understand nothing."

So for my part - it was "pervasive" in that such training methods, I believe, were available within many many martial ryu, but the experts were few. I think the same is true in China.
Quote:
Nonetheless, maybe Takeda was the best who ever lived in Japan. Maybe he found things that no Japanese had ever discovered. Hell, maybe he went to the presentation of Hao Enguang, who in 1914, presented xingyi in Japan, went backstage and totally revolutionized his art after they compared methods (relax - I'm just having fun - though I do wish I knew who invited Hao, and what was the reaction among the Japanese viewers. Did he blow them away, or did they leave shaking their heads?. . )
Let me offer a bad simile - lets imagine every Barnes and Noble has a section in the back with rare books, $1000 apiece. You could go into "any" Barnes and Noble - the back room is there, but few people want to spend the money, learn to translate the books, etc. People know the back room is there and brag about their back room in their barnes and Noble, but few even walk through the doorway, and of those that do, most leaf through the books, run their fingers over the cover and then leave and talk about how good those books were "back in the day."
My perspective on Japan at the time of Takeda is that the martial schools weren't Barnes and Noble - they were Borders books - going out of business or closed down. Toby Threadgill has noted that among Yoshin-ryu densho, those groups that associated most strongly with the Kodokan eliminated explanation of the nairiki in their densho and then, even further, stopped even writing that section of their own densho. Takeda issued a "hostile takeover," and as far as the public - and much of the martial arts community among them - was concerned, his was the only bookstore that still had a back room. (and yes, there were still some independent booksellers around, but you had to know what alley to walk down and what was the secret code phrase to be let in the back room - and then you weren't allowed to shop at any other bookstore again, nor were you allowed to tell people the address).

Finally, re Chinese experts vs. Japanese - Once again, hopefully, we are talking about pedagogy, not merely who could beat who.
1. In many koryu, the esoteric training has specific limitations, because they are used to contribute to the overall intent of that koryu - which could be the techniques and even such larger issues as what would contribute to strengthening the ryu as a political entity. Therefore, an outside expert could, were he or she allowed to look over the curriculum, state "this ryu has these elements, but lacks these others." But that limited perspective might hone their ability with a tanto, within ryu parameters to an incredible peak, for one example.
2. I think it is very possible that someone with a "limited" curriculum of IT, trained to a peak, may very well be more powerful than someone with a comprehensive curriculum, not trained as well, or simply lacking a fighting spirit.
3. In trying to evaluate IT, be it Japanese, Chinese, or remnants in the Persian Zhor Khane - even today - is that most teachers are not open with their curriculum. So it's hard to objectively evaluate these things.

So let's imagine Chen Fake met Takeda Sokaku (there's a dream match!). Let's say, just for the sake of saying that they had a match and Chen Fake lost. And then they compared notes, and realized, nonetheless, that the entire curriculum of IT that Chen possessed through all the generations of the Chen family was more comprehensive than what Takeda possessed. Yet Takeda won the fight! And Takeda comes to the conclusion that a) he could take the more comprehensive knowledge that Chen has and offers to become yet stronger still OR b) that as far as he was concerned, this more comprehensive information was a distraction and continued study of what he knew what what he needed to know. (Or, fwiw, we reverse the positions in this story - the Japanese are more complete, whatever anyone likes - we can do anything in fantasy).

Any of these possibilities are true - the issue for each of us to to find a methodology - either inside or outside a martial tradtion - that works and train it into the ground and see how we emerge.

So when I hear that Sagawa dismissed Araki-ryu, that he had a menkyo in, because it lacked aiki, I assume he meant that the curriculum of the martial art he studied lacked it, because surely, he could, like Ueshiba, easilly say, "In aiki, we do it this way." Anyway, I'm not going to get ticked off that someone, be they Sagawa or not, dissed Araki-ryu. For me, data not personality. If he's right, how do I make up the lack.

The only way we will find out if the Japanese - specifically Daito-ryu - is limited compared to this or that Chinese system is when each puts all their cards on the table, and methodologies can be clearly compared. Until that date, we end up observing YouTube or even cross-hands, and make assertions that, for example, Ueshiba had this and that, but lacked full understanding of . . .If such examination (like Sagawa asserting that Hosono lacked aiki because of the way he was sitting in a photo) somehow aids training, great. Otherwise, it's just all us talking.

Last edited by Ellis Amdur : 08-01-2011 at 10:29 AM.

  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 11:18 AM   #111
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

Quote:
Ellis Amdur wrote: View Post
(I knew how great Wang Shu Chin was when I travelled to Taiwan and every teacher I met who wanted to prove to me how powerful they were stated that they'd beaten Wang. He "lost" so many times!).
Well, of course every jackleg martial-artist is going to try to put down his betters, but you need to look at the culture of Taiwan, Hong Kong, Fujian Province, etc., and understand that some of the things we would deplore in an American are considered more the norm there.

That being said, Wang XuJin is perhaps a good comparison to look at. Wang made his name among westerners because he was one of the few Taiwanese that would teach foreigners. So therefore foreigners are focused on what Wang did, yet on Taiwan where he was considered a "name", he wasn't necessarily the biggest of the Big Dogs. I.e., our conversations may revolve around Wang (read "Takeda" or "Ueshiba") for essentially P.R. reasons, but that doesn't necessarily give us a correct perspective of all that went on. Most of martial-arts training, etc., is not publicly written about in Japan or China, so what we think we know of it relies heavily on second-hand, hearsay, and the few written records we have.

Incidentally, in terms of Wang XuJin, I was told of a friendly match where a big 'name' martial artist tossed Wang up onto a table. I was told this by a native Taiwanese who studied martial arts since a child on Taiwan. In a way, this anecdote demonstrates my point... few foreigners have ever heard some of these stories and they'd staunchly and angrily defend the name of Wang XuJin is someone told that anecdote. Everyone wants to defend his "style" or his "teacher" or lineage. They also want to trivialize everyone they consider competition. It's normal human pettiness. Allowing for all that, I still think there's plenty of room for various alternative realities involving Takeda, Ueshiba, and who was hiding what from whom.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 11:33 AM   #112
Ellis Amdur
 
Ellis Amdur's Avatar
Location: Seattle
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 879
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

Mike - agree. (BTW - that particular story involved Shang Dong Shen, correct? That was one of the one's I believed )

Here's a funny Wang story, that illustrates all the levels of cultural confusion that can occur. An acquaintance of mine was training in Taichung in the 70's and after some considerable effort, managed to convince Wang's inner circle that he'd really like a chance to study with him. So he was told to be at a certain location in a local park very early in the morning. He arrives and waits and then Wang shows up. No students. So Wang does a t'ai chi set. Then he glances over at the guy, who is trying to be polite, doesn't know what's expected, so he just stands there, thinking that he should not approach the master, the master should choose to approach him. So Wang then does a set of xingyi, glances over again. The American does the same, and now Wang looks disgruntled, and goes into bagua. Looks over again. The American does nothing, and Wang, red-faced, stomps off.
The next day, one of his students approaches the guy and says, "Master Wang says you shouldn't come around again. He's really angry."
"What did I do? I tried to show him all the respect I could."
"What did you do!!!! Master Wang goes early to the park and shows you his t'ai chi, and you just stand there, implicitly saying, 'that's all you got?' So he shows you his xingyi, and you dismiss him again! So then he thinks you must be really serious, so he shows you his bagua!!!! And you just look at him again, telling him with that silence, that you are not impressed. Of course, he's insulted."

And, had this been Japan, he would have been doing just the "right" thing

  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 12:03 PM   #113
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

Quote:
Ellis Amdur wrote: View Post
Mike - agree. (BTW - that particular story involved Shang Dong Shen, correct? That was one of the one's I believed )
No, it was someone else. However, let me note once again that Wang was considered to be very good. I'm personally sort of repelled by the types of teachers who constantly imply no one is as good as they are, so if I met a teacher on Taiwan (or other places) that spent great amounts of time putting others down, I'd assume something was wrong and wouldn't study with them. The caveat being that some of this behavior can be the norm on Taiwan and a few other places.

Quote:

Here's a funny Wang story, that illustrates all the levels of cultural confusion that can occur. An acquaintance of mine was training in Taichung in the 70's and after some considerable effort, managed to convince Wang's inner circle that he'd really like a chance to study with him. So he was told to be at a certain location in a local park very early in the morning. He arrives and waits and then Wang shows up. No students. So Wang does a t'ai chi set. Then he glances over at the guy, who is trying to be polite, doesn't know what's expected, so he just stands there, thinking that he should not approach the master, the master should choose to approach him. So Wang then does a set of xingyi, glances over again. The American does the same, and now Wang looks disgruntled, and goes into bagua. Looks over again. The American does nothing, and Wang, red-faced, stomps off.
The next day, one of his students approaches the guy and says, "Master Wang says you shouldn't come around again. He's really angry."
"What did I do? I tried to show him all the respect I could."
"What did you do!!!! Master Wang goes early to the park and shows you his t'ai chi, and you just stand there, implicitly saying, 'that's all you got?' So he shows you his xingyi, and you dismiss him again! So then he thinks you must be really serious, so he shows you his bagua!!!! And you just look at him again, telling him with that silence, that you are not impressed. Of course, he's insulted."

And, had this been Japan, he would have been doing just the "right" thing
That reminds me, getting back on topic, that I know of western students of Wang who got all sorts of "postures" and forms and "applications", but who got no inkling of how to train internal strength. I.e., I disagree with the idea that it's easier to get descriptive training via the Chinese.

2 cents.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 12:15 PM   #114
Ellis Amdur
 
Ellis Amdur's Avatar
Location: Seattle
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 879
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

To sum up this not-actually-derailment-of-thread-after-all:
whether more common in China than Japan or vice versa, whether more complete in China than Japan or vice versa, whoever is really good and whoever is not is blurred by anecdote, self-aggrandizement, self-delusion and wishful thinking on the part of acolytes

AND few people have high level skills, few people who have such skills are willing to teach those skills, and of the people they are willing to teach, few of them really learn what they were taught. And THAT is passed down to the next generation. And this is true, equally, in both China and Japan.

And particularly if you are from another race, another culture, another village, another family from the teacher who has IT, it is very rare that the teacher is willing to share the truth.

BUT - some do. Nonetheless, some do.

Which means, as students, we keep our eyes open for such teachers and whatever we are studying, it is only through comparison and open communication, sparring and other physical testing with others on the path who are training other methods, that we can get a good sense of the worth of what we are learning.

  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 12:18 PM   #115
DH
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,394
United_States
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

The opener was to you, the rest was discussing different points made by different people.

I'm not sure why you believe you are disagreeing with any of my points.
I made an argument that IP was known in Japan. I gave reference to Koryu scrolls I know of. I have personal experiences with it being discussed in three koryu. My argument was that it was not well known or practiced. Thats what I stated.
You just repeated it back to me!

The Chinese method over the Japanese being reduced to whos the best.
You are obviously talking to the wrong person. I didn't reduce the argument to individual players, Mike did. I responded to that. When he continued I responded with equally absurd cases to prove how absurd these comparisons are. As you are continuing to reduce the discussion to individuals (this time Chinese players), maybe you should continue to take your points up on individual players with Mike and not me. I've no interest beyond countering how ridiculous it is.

I...have no interest in a personal "who" is the best as it goes nowhere.
Your... discussion of who's the best, was a repeat of what we discussed at your table with Josh there. At the time the discussion was over Mike, Ark, me, Ushiro, Ikeda etc. My argument was that it will lead nowhere.
What parameters do we use?
Information vetted by whom?
Based on what authority?
If you think the people under discussion are all experts, and anyone here can accurately judge...then go for it.
Quote:
The only way we will find out if the Japanese - specifically Daito-ryu - is limited compared to this or that Chinese system is when each puts all their cards on the table, and methodologies can be clearly compared.
1. As for laying things on the table, here?
To be judged by who? I see no experts here qualified to make a judgement on this topic. I have spent quite a bit of time debating this topic with someone I now know was never really able to demonstrate his self described deeper knowledge had any real value over what was already in the public domain and that many could actually use better. Why waste even more time?

2. As for laying things on the mat to be judged.
I will leave that for the mat. I am sure I will continue to meet experts of all types. FWIW, It is well in keeping with Budo that when you discuss an idea you be able to demonstrate and prove your ideas on the spot. If a person can't personally deliver and/or has no students who can deliver, he has no part in the discussion as far as I am concerned. A coach has a winning team or you can have all his theories.

As for just talking:
This is fun, don't get me wrong, but that's all it is to me, just fun.
I'm more interested in what happens ten years out, when the strong personalities in the debate have left the building or become less important. Lets see then what these current supposed experts and internet pundits pulled off where it counted...Teaching.
All the best
Dan

Last edited by DH : 08-01-2011 at 12:33 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 02:52 PM   #116
graham christian
Dojo: golden center aikido-highgate
Location: london
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,697
England
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
If somebody already knows all the answers, is "already doing that", "did it with Tohei", and so on, why impose yourself and show them anything? "Hide" probably has too much of an emotional index. "Not showing them what they already purport to know" might be better.

Mike Sigman
Or not showing what you don't know.

Why show me anything indeed? You don't know Toheis Aikido.

In fact I never hear you talk Aikido and that shows me what's hidden in plain sight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 06:02 PM   #117
Mark Mueller
Location: Louisville Kentucky
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 164
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

3. A grasping paranoia (or more mundanely, an extreme wariness), which imbues the Daito-ryu arts and it's off-shoots to this day, in which the teachers view the students as "stealing and keeping" the secrets.

This would explain so much..........
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 06:14 PM   #118
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

Quote:
Mark Mueller wrote: View Post
3. A grasping paranoia (or more mundanely, an extreme wariness), which imbues the Daito-ryu arts and it's off-shoots to this day, in which the teachers view the students as "stealing and keeping" the secrets.

This would explain so much..........
I read through a book called "A Wrestler's Body" by Joseph S. Alter during one of my searches for the history of the internal strength skills. My impression was that while this was a good book, it suffered the usual "through the eyes of a Westerner" stuff. However, at one point in the book, the author notes the rules that apply to the specialized training that produces Shakti (jin; kokyu) and among the important rules was that these things must be kept secret. The point being that things being kept secret is traditional in pretty much every style/art/ethnicity that I've seen.

FWIW

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 07:20 PM   #119
Ellis Amdur
 
Ellis Amdur's Avatar
Location: Seattle
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 879
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

Dan - Just a few quick points on your last post, in so far as it touches on me.

Quote:
Has anyone entertained what would have happened had a Chinese internal expert met Takeda or Ueshiba?
2. How about if Takeda or Ueshiba had showed up to take on external artists in China? There were many.
That statement was why I even engaged in the subject. Didn't realize you were expressing this reducto ad absurdum.

Quote:
Your... discussion of who's the best, was a repeat of what we discussed at your table with Josh there. At the time the discussion was over Mike, Ark, me, Ushiro, Ikeda etc. My argument was that it will lead nowhere.
I don't recall that discussion quite like that. i recall discussing the methodology by which people are presenting this info - in public. And as always, I'm scrupulous at NOT stating anything on methodology that a) I don't understand b) that someone told me in confidence (and I get that a fair amount, because people trust me not to violate such confidences. What I definitely never did was discuss who could beat up whom, or who was the 'best" at IT. I certainly will state if I think a person can defeat me or otherwise impresses me (because that is a way I evaluate people, in terms of having something to catch up to). Then again, I think I could have defeated Nitta sensei from day 1 that I entered her dojo, but after 13 years, she was still knocking me back on my heels with new knowledge in Toda-ha Buko-ryu, and budo in general.

Quote:
As for laying things on the table, here?
To be judged by who? I see no experts here qualified to make a judgement on this topic. I have spent quite a bit of time debating this topic with someone I now know was never really able to demonstrate his self described deeper knowledge had any real value over what was already in the public domain and that many could actually use better. Why waste even more time?
You really missed my point. All I was talking about was a collegial exchange. In my own training these days, I'm doing a lot more exchange - I teach Araki-ryu for example, in exchange for BJJ lessons. Of course such an exchange is limited if people do not want to be in each other's company. I got that. But that, and only that is what I was saying.

But I did not start this thread for a debate on skills or Chinese/Japanese antecedents. Yet, somehow, back to that underbrush we have gone.

Rather, I wanted to point out an example of Ueshiba perhaps lifting the veil a little, in a rather charming way. And how it relates to teaching styles - the latter a fruitful area of discussion when we try to figure out why this stuff dies, why it was so rare, and how it hopefully can survive and flourish.

EA

.

  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 07:35 PM   #120
Ellis Amdur
 
Ellis Amdur's Avatar
Location: Seattle
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 879
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

I got a PM. question that I can answer here. Some may already know the story. Re Takeda's American student. In 1905, Takeda Sokaku got on a train - either 2nd or 1st class car, and an American named Charles Perry tried to physically evict him from the car, thinking that this shabbily dressed Japanese didn't belong there. Takeda dropped him, I believe with a nikkyo. Perry studied with him for what I believe is a brief period of time, learning some of the jujutsu, and he later had some role in interesting T. Roosevelt in jujutsu.

In a search of newspapers, I found an article once that an elderly English professor in Yokohama named Charles Perry was, in 1949, beaten to death by a Japanese student.

Perry was buried in Yokohama - I think it is very possible that this was the same man - the dates correspond to the age he would have been.

The recently deceased Laszlo Abel did significant research on Perry, not only finding his grave in Yokohama, but one of his landladies. I don't know if Laszlo ever gathered that information together in publishable form. If so, Stanley Prainin has it now.

I believe Perry's history with DR was very brief. Still, to me the most remarkable thing is that Takeda Sokaku was willing to teach a foreigner in 1905. Similarly, when Terry Dobson was suggested as an uchi-deshi, there was considerable opposition among the uchi-deshi and others at admitting a non-Japanese (unlike Noquet, Terry had no gov't backing or status. He was one step from being a stray dog). It was Ueshiba who ordered that he be admitted.

In the mid-1980's I was scheduled to present in the Nippon Budokan as the leading sempai of Toda-ha Buko-ryu (Nitta sensei was not presenting) - at the all Japan Koryu embu. She got a lot of pressure from shihan of other ryu that it shamed Japanese budo if a koryu's leading representative was a gaijin. She told them that it was none of their business and called me up the night before and ordered me to absolutely present that next day. At one point, we discussed if I would succeed her as soke, and both agreed that it would not be good for the ryu - any mistake I made in etiquette or the like would be blamed on my foreigeness, and this would be a distraction for all the THBR members. But she was very willing to entertain the possibility.

As I say, there have always been exceptions to the general closed grasping quality so rife in martial arts.
Best
EA

  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 09:02 PM   #121
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

Quote:
Ellis Amdur wrote: View Post
Rather, I wanted to point out an example of Ueshiba perhaps lifting the veil a little, in a rather charming way. And how it relates to teaching styles - the latter a fruitful area of discussion when we try to figure out why this stuff dies, why it was so rare, and how it hopefully can survive and flourish.

EA

.
Just my thoughts ...

Why it dies?

There's the story about the person from the Takumakai who went to Tokimune for information and came back with boring solo exercises. No one wanted to do them.

Takeda saying only to teach the secrets to one or two people.

The repetitive, boring exercises that take years for results versus quicker, technique based training.

"Spoon-feeding" training. There is a major problem with looking at internal training as the same as all other martial arts. You can get off track very easily with internal training as opposed to technique based arts, so there should have been a different training paradigm for internal training but I think only Takeda had that. Most other teachers just went ahead with the same old training paradigm that typical martial arts used and that would have hindered students progressing in internal training.

Teachers actually not teaching what they knew for whatever reason (Sagawa is a good example).

I would venture a guess that between those who spent the long torturous years building aiki/IP that they didn't want to teach basics again, to finding students who will put in the time, to the more flashy technique based systems that lured most students, to teachers not "spoon feeding" students, and teachers holding back, it wouldn't take much more to have internal skills die out in the martial arts.

rare?

Looking at current trends, I think one could apply it to history to see why it was so rare. How many *want* to get exposure to the internal skills when their normal martial training provides them a comfort level or a social environment or a challenging environment that suits them? Of those that get the exposure, how many find it worth pursuing? Repetitive, boring solo exercises that are a challenge to do. Paired exercises that seem to have little to do with martial validity. Until years go by. How many keep going?

Then toss in that those who had IT didn't teach many people as a general rule.

Of the three areas, I think the last one is the important one. Especially for "aikido". I have said and still believe that there really is no way for aiki to be put back into Modern Aikido. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. Modern Aikido stands on its own for what it is. But Modern Aikido is nowhere near Morihei Ueshiba's aikido. People will not want to believe that and try to put a square peg in a round hole. Some will just go into denial that their Modern Aikido is Ueshiba's aikido.

It will take some translations, some correlations, and some in depth research to get information out there that shows the truth. Whether that actually happens ... I don't know.

Modern Aikido's "ukemi" model of training is a road block to getting very good at aiki. Modern Aikido's base training methodology (hanmi for example) is a road block to getting very good at aiki. The manner in which the body is trained to execute the techniques (hips generate movement for example) is a road block to getting very good at aiki. Lack of internal power (IP) driving techniques (breaking judoka's hip as an example) in an IP atemi manner. The entire "blending" and harmonizing" in Modern Aikido is opposite the aiki "blending" and "harmonizing". And let's not even get into the weapons training.

Survive and flourish? I think (and I could be wrong) people are going to have to choose whether they want to train in Modern Aikido or in Ueshiba's aikido. Neither good nor bad, depending on what kind of training a person is looking for. As I said, Modern Aikido stands on its own and doesn't need anyone to defend it. Millions worldwide have given Modern Aikido a shape, a form, and a spiritual ideal.

Both will end up looking similar. It will only be when people take them out for a test drive will they find major differences. I guess there will be one outward, major difference. Modern Aikido will have millions of students. Morhei Ueshiba's aikido will have hundreds. As it was, as it is now, as it will ever be.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 09:31 PM   #122
Lee Salzman
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 406
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote: View Post
Of the three areas, I think the last one is the important one. Especially for "aikido". I have said and still believe that there really is no way for aiki to be put back into Modern Aikido. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. Modern Aikido stands on its own for what it is. But Modern Aikido is nowhere near Morihei Ueshiba's aikido. People will not want to believe that and try to put a square peg in a round hole. Some will just go into denial that their Modern Aikido is Ueshiba's aikido.

It will take some translations, some correlations, and some in depth research to get information out there that shows the truth. Whether that actually happens ... I don't know.

Modern Aikido's "ukemi" model of training is a road block to getting very good at aiki. Modern Aikido's base training methodology (hanmi for example) is a road block to getting very good at aiki. The manner in which the body is trained to execute the techniques (hips generate movement for example) is a road block to getting very good at aiki. Lack of internal power (IP) driving techniques (breaking judoka's hip as an example) in an IP atemi manner. The entire "blending" and harmonizing" in Modern Aikido is opposite the aiki "blending" and "harmonizing". And let's not even get into the weapons training.

Survive and flourish? I think (and I could be wrong) people are going to have to choose whether they want to train in Modern Aikido or in Ueshiba's aikido. Neither good nor bad, depending on what kind of training a person is looking for. As I said, Modern Aikido stands on its own and doesn't need anyone to defend it. Millions worldwide have given Modern Aikido a shape, a form, and a spiritual ideal.

Both will end up looking similar. It will only be when people take them out for a test drive will they find major differences. I guess there will be one outward, major difference. Modern Aikido will have millions of students. Morhei Ueshiba's aikido will have hundreds. As it was, as it is now, as it will ever be.
I think calling the end result Morihei Ueshiba's aikido in the end is a non-sequitur. It is reconstituted aiki-do arising from seeking out the source of Morihei Ueshiba's knowledge and then attempting to use the information thereby to reproduce his abilities. But the information did not come down from Morihei Ueshiba itself, whereas Modern Aikido did, that is, has an actual lineage to him, even though it has not reproduced his abilities. And yet, we have no definitive claim that we know what Morihei Ueshiba was doing, only that we think given his sources, we can engineer something like it again. This means you will always have a tough sell, because while you may now actually be operating on the same principles as Morihei Ueshiba technically, you did not get them from him directly or through a lineage from him. But reconstituted aiki-do? I don't think there would be anywhere near as much animosity if it was accurately labeled that, what it is, and by all means, my bias is that the reconstituted form is more interesting to me, but I do not entertain that I am upholding Morihei Ueshiba's tradition.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 09:39 PM   #123
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

Quote:
Lee Salzman wrote: View Post
But the information did not come down from Morihei Ueshiba itself, whereas Modern Aikido did, that is, has an actual lineage to him, even though it has not reproduced his abilities.
In a way, Lee, this is a sort of standard argument. Just to give a significant example, think of Yang Cheng Fu and the Yang-style Taijiquan: many people claim to have studied under Yang Cheng Fu and therefore what they teach is the true "lineage". The problem with this argument is that it assumes that Yang Cheng Fu only had good students who carried on with what Yang was doing and it assumes that Yang taught all of his students the things that he knew. In fact, most Yang-style Taiji, particularly in the West, is just choreography and external technique.

I sort of agree that there is a real question about some of the things being taught now, but I have to point out that something that is "lineage" doesn't do much for me either.

Best.

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 10:01 PM   #124
JW
 
JW's Avatar
Location: San Diego CA USA
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 561
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

Lee, I agree that there is a "tough sell" challenge with the reconstituted stuff, because it is kind of a reverse-engineering process more than a tradition.
But-- if people can cite doka/dobun/other text from sources like the "Budo" manual, that helps. In other words there is at least a bit of a bridge to claim legitimacy of the reverse-engineered material. It's just "stealing the technique" across time.

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote: View Post
The entire "blending" and harmonizing" in Modern Aikido is opposite the aiki "blending" and "harmonizing".
This is just one pull-out quote to represent the gist of this part of your post, Mark. I respect your opinion but I want to point out that many seminar participants seem to disagree, in that they have said that there is a great match rather than a poor match. And, many are doing as Dan and Mike both either recommend or just plain expect: taking what they learn and sticking with aikido, and not seeming to find that to be a square peg and round hole.

In other words I recognize that modern aikido has started to diverge from Ueshiba's personal art, but I think your words are too harsh.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2011, 10:30 PM   #125
DH
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,394
United_States
Offline
Re: Hidden in Plain Sight - Indeed!

Quote:
Ellis Amdur wrote: View Post
I got a PM. question that I can answer here. Some may already know the story. Re Takeda's American student. In 1905, Takeda Sokaku got on a train - either 2nd or 1st class car, and an American named Charles Perry tried to physically evict him from the car, thinking that this shabbily dressed Japanese didn't belong there. Takeda dropped him, I believe with a nikkyo. Perry studied with him for what I believe is a brief period of time, learning some of the jujutsu, and he later had some role in interesting T. Roosevelt in jujutsu.
It is my understanding that Takeda dispatched two teachers to the white house to teach Roosevelt. The date are in the registration book, though Roosevelt did not sign the book personally.
I'm not too hepped up on who he taught because I think he only really taught a fraction of the people who trained with him.

I don't think the issue is of teaching white people, it is an issue of actually teaching white people. A more interesting observation is those same people not ever realizing they were not taught. Why? Because they rarely run into someone who can demonstrate to them their lack and how to fix it.

Bringing foreigners into it is interesting but the bizzare behavior is not reserved for them only.
We could make an argument that when Ueshiba was standing next to Terry doing Fune kogi Undo that he was teaching him…but it is clear he really wasn’t.
Now add the Native Japanese. How many do you think, got it?



Nothing is as bizarre as Tokimune and his creation of aiki budo, as a separate art from aiki jujutsu, and awarding rank in both for years and in the end essentially telling students of 35 years that he didn't teach them the art. That makes Sagawa look like a piker!
So we have the same thing in China
Foreigners:
I have seen some guys who spent 11 years in China who have no clue what internal power really means. And they are now famous teachers of internal arts here in the states.
Native Chinese:
Now having met one of this man's teachers, a grand master of ICMA, this guy has no internal power either. Then I find out that he, a native Chinese, was not taught either and many know it!

There may be no promise with either of these cultures, but I could make a case for the power of stealing techniques and learning to play a teacher in a calculated manner in order to get more information but I'm not disposed to do that here.

Anyway, it's just as much a mess in China as it is in Japan.
Dan

Last edited by DH : 08-01-2011 at 10:44 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hidden in plain sight page 115 ewolput General 10 09-12-2010 04:31 AM
"Hidden in Plain Sight" - ukemi as a training tool jss Supplies 16 09-03-2009 02:47 AM
Ellis Amdur's "Hidden in Plain Sight" Prepublication Sale AikiWeb System AikiWeb System 64 08-27-2009 01:15 PM
Transmission, Inheritance, Emulation 10 Peter Goldsbury Columns 200 02-04-2009 06:45 AM
O'Sensei's sight suren General 5 07-28-2004 05:41 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:35 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2017 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2017 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate