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 > Non-Aikido Martial Traditions

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 07-31-2007, 08:20 PM   #26
Cady Goldfield
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 875
United_States
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Mike,
There is nothing -- nada, zip -- in the historic record, neither written nor oral, that indicates that Ueshiba trained in internal arts with anyone but Takeda, as part of his DR training. But, there are lots of quotes from his peers and students that strengthen his connection to Takeda, whose internal skills were of a high level. Sagawa and Horikawa didn't get their skills from tengu, you know.

Tangentially...You might enjoy, and find helpful, Stan Pranin's book on Daito-ryu, which shares some of the anecdotes of Takeda's life, the degree of his skills, background, and his relationship with Ueshiba.

Last edited by Cady Goldfield : 07-31-2007 at 08:34 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2007, 08:20 PM   #27
Fred Little
Dojo: NJIT Budokai
Location: State Line NJ/NY
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 610
United_States
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
Hi Fred
You might consider it was only after Takeda's prolonged visit at Ayabe that Ueshiba learned "Aiki" because he was ready And it was only after this earned a teaching certificate. And it was Deguchi who was so impressed by ...Takeda...that he suggested -Takeda- change the name of the art to Daito ryu Aikijujutsu.
Sequence is not causality.

You have one and a half facts onto which you have loaded a truckload of interpretation.

Fact one: Takeda awarded the Kyoju Dairi to Ueshiba in Ayabe.

Claim analysis: What Ueshiba had learned in Hokkaido and precisely how it was different from what he learned in Ayabe is pure supposition on your part. Similarly, Ueshiba might have "earned" a teaching certificate because he had a steady stream of students in Ayabe and Takeda wanted to collect a price for each one. Or maybe Ueshiba just left Hokkaido hastily and this was the first appropriate occasion. Or maybe two jealous mentors were jousting over their prize student. One explanation is as plausible as the other, and the truth is probably a bit of all of them.

Half-fact: Takeda issued the Kyoju Dairi in DRAJJ and changed the name of his own art from DRJJ to DRAJJ, it is asserted that he did so at the suggestion of Deguchi.

Claim analysis: Deguchi and Takeda are also said to have disliked one another. Was the suggested change to DRAJJ a measure of how "impressed" Deguchi was by Takeda, or were two jealous mentors jousting over their prize student? And.....was there a business advantage for Takeda in the name change? Again, one explanation is as plausible as another.

Why leap to conclusions?

Best,

FL
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2007, 08:50 PM   #28
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Quote:
Cady Goldfield wrote: View Post
Mike,
There is nothing -- nada, zip -- in the historic record, neither written nor oral, that indicates that Ueshiba trained in internal arts with anyone but Takeda, as part of his DR training.
I understand that, Cady, but there's a lot of things "not in the historic record" about Ueshiba that we don't know. We don't even know, despite scores of Uchideshi, exactly how Ueshiba trained, for instance. Some guy may come to Dan's house for a weekend and suddenly get a glimpse of ki and kokyu skills and there will be "nothing in the historic record" to reflect it, right? We do know that Ueshiba visited many places and watched training at many dojos and that probably some Chinese members of Omoto Kyo might have had some Chinese-influenced training methods, and so on. The bald assertion that it had to be Takeda simply doesn't stand. Another assertion/assumption that doesn't stand is the idea that there was no Chinese influence in Japan. BS... there were actual exchange students in Japanese and Chinese schools, there were visiting martial artists, etc., but there wasn't particularly note made of this in the historical records about Ueshiba, was there? You see the point... there are just too many possibilities for other influence for anyone to say with certitude that Ueshiba could only have gotten his stuff from Takeda.

Best.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 01:03 AM   #29
Tim Fong
 
Tim Fong's Avatar
Dojo: Aunkai
Location: California
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 175
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

All through the late nineteenth century there were Chinese military cadets at Japanese schools. Local governments in China sponsored cadets to learn military science and so on, with the idea that they would bring back the knowledge to China.

That's the origin of the "Mao suit;" it was based on the Japanese cadet uniform.

It would not be surprising if there were [gasp] Chinese martial arts practitioners going to military school in Japan. Plus, there was quite a bit of contact between the ultra-right in Japan and the KMT revolutionaries in China. Who were often, martial artists....
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 05:52 AM   #30
SeiserL
 
SeiserL's Avatar
Dojo: Roswell Budokan, Kyushinkan Dojo, Aikido World Alliance
Location: Roswell, GA USA
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,710
United_States
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Osu Ellis,

Always enjoy your insights and instruction.

Still working with the solo exercises you taught in Florida.

While I have not real content to add to this thread, perhaps there can be something said for the attitude (spiritual training) and the mileage (hours of discipline without looking for a short cut or explanation) that contributes to the development and acquisition of skills.

First we learn the form, then modify the form, then break from the form. Most of us are stuck in the first one (learn the form, technicians). Others want to break from the form without every putting in the mileage to learn the form they are breaking from.

As a passionate hobbyist, that's my story story and plan (stay open and keep training).

Thanks again, and there will be more agains.

Lynn Seiser PhD
Yondan Aikido & FMA/JKD
We do not rise to the level of our expectations, but fall to the level of our training. Train well. KWATZ!
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 06:20 AM   #31
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

If, as Amdur sensei writes, "concur with Stan Pranin that, for better and for worse, Doshu made aikido into something as different from the art of his father as Morihei's martial art was from Daito-ryu.", then why didn't Kisshomaru change the name of the art?

And it seems kind of ... funny ironic, maybe? ... but Doshu and the Aikikai tried to get Tomiki to change the name of his school because it was different. Like the pot calling the kettle black?

Back to my question, though. Where would one go to research how Ueshiba Morihei's aikido was different from Takeda's Daito Ryu? As noted, most of the people who could provide answers are dead. And a lot of the writings left to us can have multiple interpretations.

On a different topic, the name change by Ueshiba Morihei to aikido doesn't seem to be that significant. Takeda changed the name to Daito ryu aikijutsu at Ayabe. We all know that -jutsu schools became -do, therefore, Daito ryu could very well be called Daito ryu aikido. Ueshiba Morihei dropped Takeda's reference of Daito ryu and the art became known as aikido.

And perhaps that was something that needed to be done. IF Ueshiba Morihei was going from a hard line jutsu application to something more spiritual where instead of dropping a foe at one's feet and killing, it would become neutralizing the foe and sending them away ... then add to that the fact that Ueshiba Morihei kept the core skills from DR, called "aiki" ... well, it seems kind of logical to drop the Daito ryu from the name, keep the aiki, but change from -jutsu to -do.

Just rambling,
Mark
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 06:23 AM   #32
Cady Goldfield
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 875
United_States
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Mike,
In the total absence of documentation of Ueshiba learning internal skills from anyone other than Takeda, and with the plethora of written and oral documentation cementing Ueshiba's relationship as a student under Takeda, Occam's razor should prevail in the face of any conjecture such as that which you offer.

Occam notwithstanding, we should keep in mind the nature of such master-student relationships -- especially in view of the esteem and secrecy in which these internal skills were (and are) kept. I doubt that any master in China or anywhere possessing such skills would hand them to Ueshiba and then let him blithely do as he wished with them. At the very least, they'd want acknowledgement from their student when he got famous (There are famous accounts of Takeda hunting Ueshiba down for teaching without offering credit to Takeda for his skills and methods).

One thing I've learned, over 30 years of martial study, is that even the most benevelent master has an ego, and wants to be acknowledged. I doubt that Ueshiba found a hidden monastery of Chinese warrior monks who took him in, gave him internal skills, sent him on his way, then vanished with their monastery like Brigadoon.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
I understand that, Cady, but there's a lot of things "not in the historic record" about Ueshiba that we don't know. We don't even know, despite scores of Uchideshi, exactly how Ueshiba trained, for instance. Some guy may come to Dan's house for a weekend and suddenly get a glimpse of ki and kokyu skills and there will be "nothing in the historic record" to reflect it, right? We do know that Ueshiba visited many places and watched training at many dojos and that probably some Chinese members of Omoto Kyo might have had some Chinese-influenced training methods, and so on. The bald assertion that it had to be Takeda simply doesn't stand. Another assertion/assumption that doesn't stand is the idea that there was no Chinese influence in Japan. BS... there were actual exchange students in Japanese and Chinese schools, there were visiting martial artists, etc., but there wasn't particularly note made of this in the historical records about Ueshiba, was there? You see the point... there are just too many possibilities for other influence for anyone to say with certitude that Ueshiba could only have gotten his stuff from Takeda.

Best.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 06:27 AM   #33
Cady Goldfield
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 875
United_States
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Quote:
Tim Fong wrote: View Post
All through the late nineteenth century there were Chinese military cadets at Japanese schools. Local governments in China sponsored cadets to learn military science and so on, with the idea that they would bring back the knowledge to China.

That's the origin of the "Mao suit;" it was based on the Japanese cadet uniform.

It would not be surprising if there were [gasp] Chinese martial arts practitioners going to military school in Japan. Plus, there was quite a bit of contact between the ultra-right in Japan and the KMT revolutionaries in China. Who were often, martial artists....
Tim,
For basic combat skills, that's not unusual. But for the internal skills, which are guarded jealously (particularly the high level stuff), I really doubt there is any such thing as "exchange students."
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 06:28 AM   #34
DH
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,394
United_States
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Mark
That was a joy to read.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 06:29 AM   #35
Timothy WK
Location: Chicago, IL
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 178
United_States
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote: View Post
...Takeda changed the name to Daito ryu aikijutsu at Ayabe...
Didn't he change it to Daito-ryu Aiki-ju-jutsu?

--Timothy Kleinert

Aikido & Wujifa qigongs
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 07:06 AM   #36
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Quote:
Cady Goldfield wrote: View Post
Mike,
In the total absence of documentation of Ueshiba learning internal skills from anyone other than Takeda, and with the plethora of written and oral documentation cementing Ueshiba's relationship as a student under Takeda, Occam's razor should prevail in the face of any conjecture such as that which you offer.
Occam's Razor doesn't apply to history, Cady. There's no record of my first date anywhere, but I had one.
Quote:
Occam notwithstanding, we should keep in mind the nature of such master-student relationships -- especially in view of the esteem and secrecy in which these internal skills were (and are) kept.
We don't know that. Suppose the secret oath of the Omoto Kyo was enough so that some visiting Chinese members of O.K. showed Ueshiba an approach that was an epiphany? Ueshiba's approach, to my eyes, appears to be somewhat different from what I know/hear about Sagawa's approach... how does that work?
Quote:
I doubt that any master in China or anywhere possessing such skills would hand them to Ueshiba and then let him blithely do as he wished with them. At the very least, they'd want acknowledgement from their student when he got famous (There are famous accounts of Takeda hunting Ueshiba down for teaching without offering credit to Takeda for his skills and methods).
Doesn't have to be a "famous master", Cady. Could have been a knowledgeable guy at an Omoto Kyo group. The point is simply that the bald assertion that Ueshiba HAD to get everything he knew from Takeda doesn't fly. Besides, Ueshiba did indeed study other arts and those arts also have ki/kokyu skills. Probability points to Takeda, but not enough that I'd bet any money... nor do I accept any unsupported bald assertions about Takeda as true. Bald assertions based on belief are the things bad teachers do to loyal students and screw up their lives, IMO. If there's doubt, mention the doubt. Keeps everyone happy.
Quote:
One thing I've learned, over 30 years of martial study, is that even the most benevelent master has an ego, and wants to be acknowledged. I doubt that Ueshiba found a hidden monastery of Chinese warrior monks who took him in, gave him internal skills, sent him on his way, then vanished with their monastery like Brigadoon.
I think Ellis has mentioned that Omoto Kyo contained Chinese members as well, Cady. I realize that you firmly want to believe something, but unsupported belief and fuzzy thinking isn't the preferred method, IMO. Several instances, BTW, have been put forward in some of the recent posts supporting the idea that there is a question... the way you reject the idea that there is a question, while offering no proof, why it just boggles my engineer-type brain.

Best.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 07:52 AM   #37
David Orange
Dojo: Aozora Dojo
Location: Birmingham, AL
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,504
United_States
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Quote:
Cady Goldfield wrote: View Post
In the total absence of documentation of Ueshiba learning internal skills from anyone other than Takeda, and with the plethora of written and oral documentation cementing Ueshiba's relationship as a student under Takeda, Occam's razor should prevail in the face of any conjecture such as that which you offer.
And Ueshiba talked. He talked about Deguchi and Takeda. Does anyone have any reference to his talking about anyone else? He seems to have liked to give credit where it was due.

Mochizuki Sensei liked to talk about one person more than any other, I believe: Jigoro Kano. He had a picture of Kano on one side of his Kamiza and a picture of Ueshiba on the other. He was devoted to Ueshiba as a master, but also, it seems, as a friend. But when it came to Jigoro Kano, it was pure reverence. He would lead the closing ceremony after a hard keiko on a hot summer's day and after the final bow, he would not get up but pause, then say, "Kano Jigoro Sensei wa ne...." and everyone in the room, hot and exhausted, aching in seiza, would silently groan because he would go on for about 30 minutes, talking about how Jigoro Kano had affected him, Japan, martial arts, physical education and the world.

Other times, he did talk about Ueshiba, Mifune, Toku Sampo, Funakoshi and others, but it was clear that he revered Jigoro Kano above them all as a master.

So we have many stories from Ueshiba's students about how he would talk about Deguchi and Takeda but no one has mentioned his talking about anyone else to any significant degree--not as a teacher--and it seems to me that he would have talked about any major influence on his thinking, and especially on his martial arts.

I have often thought that Ueshiba might have been exposed to baguazhang on his journies to China and could have been inspired by simply seeing it, but we don't have any reports of his having said so to anyone. Of course, we don't have transcripts of everything he said, but with Tohei we know that he also trained with Tempu Nakamura and Tohei talked about him as well as Ueshiba, so I think Ueshiba would have talked significantly more about anything that had even modified what he learned from someone as deeply influential in his life as Sokaku Takeda. But no one recalls any such conversations.

David

"That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
Lao Tzu

"Eternity forever!"

www.davidorangejr.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 08:00 AM   #38
Ron Tisdale
Dojo: Doshinkan dojo in Roxborough, Pa
Location: Phila. Pa
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,614
United_States
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Quote:
Doug Walker wrote: View Post
Maybe a little tangential to Ellis' article, but this question has been vexing me of late. Why is this so? Why only in aikido are you expected to come up with your own martial art right off the bat?
Hi Doug, That is hardly what I mean to suggest (perhaps while being somewhat flippant, I was unclear). I think that is a perspective that many aikidoka unfortunately have, but I would not say I share it.

Quote:
As I have started work in another martial art I have become more and more aware that you change to fit the art first, then you explore the art and only then do you come up with your art. (see Teaching Shu Ha Ri) Concurrently, I continue in aikido training with just this method. And yet this does not conform to my previous experience in aikido or the reported experience of others. The uncharitable conclusion is that there were kata and a training method to be had and only few thought they were important or that at some point they were consciously abandoned. But, if so, why?
Well, my primary "style" of aikido stresses kata heavily, as it's founder gives evidence to in his writings. So I'm right there with you on that. I can't speak to other "styles" and the choices their instructors made.

Quote:
As you can see from my choices in training I feel that this "aikido of one" approach, so to speak, is the wrong approach.
What I'm trying and obviously failing to say, is that to reach any real level beyond play acting, a person must assume responsibility for their training, look under the hood, tinker with the engine, and make it work for themselves. Not their teacher, or their teacher's teacher, or the founder of the art. Themselves. Preserving the art is all well and good, and in my mind, a large part of koryu training.

But if you don't enliven the kata in the manner of someone like Y. Takamora Sensei, or Kuroda Sensei, at least as an end game, what do you really have? Play acting without the heart of the art. Some would argue that at that point, the art is dead anyway, and all we are looking at is dried bones.

Just my opinion,
Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 08:02 AM   #39
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
Of course, we don't have transcripts of everything he said, but with Tohei we know that he also trained with Tempu Nakamura and Tohei talked about him as well as Ueshiba, so I think Ueshiba would have talked significantly more about anything that had even modified what he learned from someone as deeply influential in his life as Sokaku Takeda. But no one recalls any such conversations.
A lot of the Japanese and Chinese religions have some hidden body technology aspects. Most of the early ki stuff, etc., in Japan undoubtedly came via the Buddhist Temple. Some of the Shinto sects had their own body technology (usually a borrow from Chinese stuff). I posted an example of a woman sect-founder that obviously had some access to ki/kokyu skills. Problem is that you're always sworn to secrecy, not to reveal, etc. We don't know what, if anything, Ueshiba learned in the Omoto Kyo.... but he certainly was an ardent follower and that's definitely in the "historical record".

Regards,

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 08:19 AM   #40
Cady Goldfield
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 875
United_States
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Quote:
David Orange wrote: View Post
And Ueshiba talked. He talked about Deguchi and Takeda. Does anyone have any reference to his talking about anyone else? He seems to have liked to give credit where it was due.
That's quite right. Ueshiba gave credit to Takeda grudgingly, by the accounts, and perhaps not until his master started hunting him down for collecting fees for teaching without giving Takeda his due (which was such a pittance that it's reasonable to say that this due was solely for the principle of the thing -- a form of acknowledgement of Takeda's being Ueshiba's teacher).

And Mike, Occam's Razor as a model can be applied to any arguement in which there is one set of workable, simple facts pitted against unsupported conjecture. The bottom line is that you don't add conjecture to complicate what is already a rather simple scenario. When we look at the tangible information about Ueshiba and Takeda, compared to such conjectures as you have made, the former is a way more rational theory than the latter.

You just don't want to educate yourself about Daito-ryu and Takeda by doing the research that some others have done, but you like to argue for the sake of arguing, never coming up with anything founded to support your ideas. And, you seem like to argue while flying blind, just because it's easier than doing the homework.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 08:28 AM   #41
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Quote:
Cady Goldfield wrote: View Post
That's quite right. Ueshiba gave credit to Takeda grudgingly, by the accounts, and perhaps not until his master started hunting him down for collecting fees for teaching without giving Takeda his due (which was such a pittance that it's reasonable to say that this due was solely for the principle of the thing -- a form of acknowledgement of Takeda's being Ueshiba's teacher).

And Mike, Occam's Razor as a model can be applied to any arguement in which there is one set of workable, simple facts pitted against unsupported conjecture. The bottom line is that you don't add conjecture to complicate what is already a rather simple scenario. When we look at the tangible information about Ueshiba and Takeda, compared to such conjectures as you have made, the former is a way more rational theory than the latter.

You just don't want to educate yourself about Daito-ryu and Takeda by doing the research that some others have done, but you like to argue for the sake of arguing, never coming up with anything founded to support your ideas. And, you seem like to argue while flying blind, just because it's easier than doing the homework.
Cady, I asked for direct support to the assertions. All you've given me is Occam's Razor, which essentially says the simplest answer is *usually* closest to being correct. But Occam's Razor doesn't mean anything unless you know the percentage of pertinent facts you have. So Great... re-read what I said... Takeda has a high probability but that is not strong enough to make a bald assertion; therefore, bald assertions don't work about who Ueshiba got his ki skills from. Unless.... and I ask for it again... you can come up with tangible support? If you can't show apodictic proof, why not simply say something like "we don't know for sure....", which is where you really are. I'm surprised you're arguing fuzzy probabilities when I'm directly asking for proof for some direct assertions that have been made.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 08:31 AM   #42
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Quote:
Cady Goldfield wrote: View Post
but you like to argue for the sake of arguing, never coming up with anything founded to support your ideas. And, you seem like to argue while flying blind, just because it's easier than doing the homework.
OK... give us the exact quote and proof that Ueshiba got the ki/kokyu skills he used in Aikido from Takeda. How did Takeda train? How did Ueshiba train?
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 08:42 AM   #43
Josh Reyer
 
Josh Reyer's Avatar
Location: Aichi-ken, Nagoya-shi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 644
Japan
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote: View Post
If, as Amdur sensei writes, "concur with Stan Pranin that, for better and for worse, Doshu made aikido into something as different from the art of his father as Morihei's martial art was from Daito-ryu.", then why didn't Kisshomaru change the name of the art?

And it seems kind of ... funny ironic, maybe? ... but Doshu and the Aikikai tried to get Tomiki to change the name of his school because it was different. Like the pot calling the kettle black?
Not at all. As "Doshu", as the designated inheritor of the art, Kisshomaru was free to do what he liked to the art and still retain the name. His was the honke, the mainline.

Now, one could take issue (and I sorta do) with the tendency to represent everything in modern aikido as coming from Morihei, and to downplay the changes and influence on it by Kisshomaru and Koichi Tohei, but as far as the name's concerned Kisshomaru didn't have any obligation to change it.

Josh Reyer

The lyf so short, the crafte so longe to lerne,
Th'assay so harde, so sharpe the conquerynge...
- Chaucer
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 08:57 AM   #44
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Quote:
Joshua Reyer wrote: View Post
Not at all. As "Doshu", as the designated inheritor of the art, Kisshomaru was free to do what he liked to the art and still retain the name. His was the honke, the mainline.

Now, one could take issue (and I sorta do) with the tendency to represent everything in modern aikido as coming from Morihei, and to downplay the changes and influence on it by Kisshomaru and Koichi Tohei, but as far as the name's concerned Kisshomaru didn't have any obligation to change it.
Incidentally, the Tomiki and Judo and Aikido relationship is not fully clear in all respects (rather like the Aikido and Daito-Ryu relationship). The problem is that the ki and kokyu skills are far more widespread than people think (and I think an increasing number of people are now beginning to realize this). But even with the basic skills being in most arts, in one form or another, the techniques and strategies of the arts can differ broadly. So someone can have some ki/kokyu skills and can do all the Aikido techniques... yet still not be doing Aikido with the particular "aiki" that Ueshiba had in mind. I feel pretty sure (having read some of the same sources that Ellis is referring to) that Tomiki undoubtedly had some ki/kokyu skills. However, I have no definite idea that Tomiki used those skills to the "aiki" level that O-Sensei was talking about. So I have to say "we don't know enough to make a definite statement" (same with the DR-Aiki schtick that the Hardenites are selling. ).

From what I read of Kisshomaru Ueshiba's statements about ki and aiki, I feel that he's definitely talking about the aiki concept that Ueshiba was trying to pass on, even though his skill level was not similar to his father's, Morihei.

Some of these things are subtle and we're too far away (in time) to be able to focus clearly on the picture from those days, so we'll just have to enjoy our days arguing unproductively.

Best.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 09:49 AM   #45
Walker
 
Walker's Avatar
Dojo: 光道館・叢雲道場
Location: Pacific Wonderland
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 217
United_States
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Quote:
Ron Tisdale wrote: View Post
Hi Doug, That is hardly what I mean to suggest (perhaps while being somewhat flippant, I was unclear). I think that is a perspective that many aikidoka unfortunately have, but I would not say I share it.
Best,
Ron
Sorry Ron,
Didn't mean to imply a rebuttal of you post. I think I generally know where you are coming from. Your post just sparked mine, but it should not be taken response to it.

BTW- I saw my friend Bruce a few weeks ago and your comment to say hello to T after meeting him and training was the source of great amusement. (hope that wasn't too cryptic)

-Doug Walker
光道館 高村派新道楊心流
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 09:59 AM   #46
RvW
Dojo: Shung Do Kwan, Geneva
Location: Geneva
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4
Switzerland
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Ellis makes a distinction between the "electrical shock" effects of early Ueshiba's art (refers to Mongolia) and later account of people being "lead into a void". This with the underlying thought that these effects on people are to be considered fundamentally different.

Mike, in a very early post, you dismissed this thought of Ellis. Could you explain the grounds why you do not consider these outcomes Ueshiba had on people different, and consider them to be part of one and the same skill set?

And the other way around. Ellis, could you be more explicit as to why you believe the underlying skills have to be fundamentally different?
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 10:01 AM   #47
Cady Goldfield
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 875
United_States
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
OK... give us the exact quote and proof that Ueshiba got the ki/kokyu skills he used in Aikido from Takeda. How did Takeda train? How did Ueshiba train?


Mike, the documented comments, anecdotes, Takeda's emei roku with Ueshiba's "John Hancock" all over it, interviews with his contemporaries, etc., etc. (not to mention Ueshiba's skills, whcih are recognizable and reproducible, and identifiable as having the same basis as those of Sagawa and Horikawa) carry a lot more weight than your conjectures about fanciful meetings with anonymous possessors of aiki in China.

If you were to experience high level Daito-ryu aiki firsthand, such as from the head of the Sagawa Dojo or from the Kodokai's California-based exponent, H. Kiyama, maybe you would have a better base from which to view the origins of Ueshiba's internal skills.

Until then, you're just babblin' about Brigadoon.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 10:59 AM   #48
Fred Little
Dojo: NJIT Budokai
Location: State Line NJ/NY
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 610
United_States
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Quote:
Cady Goldfield wrote: View Post

If you were to experience high level Daito-ryu aiki firsthand, such as from the head of the Sagawa Dojo or from the Kodokai's California-based exponent, H. Kiyama, maybe you would have a better base from which to view the origins of Ueshiba's internal skills.
Cady:

What direct experience do you, or your teacher, have with either of those individuals? I'm interested in a specific answer that conveys breadth, depth,and duration.

Although I claim no current affiliation with the Kodokai, I have felt Kiyama Sensei's technique on multiple occasions in seminar formats.

Similarly, although it was more than a few years ago, I studied with his East Coast Representative for well over a year and have more recently had the opportunity to train and speak with him again about a wide variety of topics.

That is part of the basis for my evaluation of the many claims that have been made in this area.

Frankly, it looks to me as if you are the one who is, in your charming phrase "babblin' about Brigadoon."

Best,

FL

Last edited by Fred Little : 08-01-2007 at 11:01 AM. Reason: sentence fragment
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 11:19 AM   #49
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Quote:
Cady Goldfield wrote: View Post
interviews with his contemporaries, etc., etc. (not to mention Ueshiba's skills, whcih are recognizable and reproducible, and identifiable as having the same basis as those of Sagawa and Horikawa) carry a lot more weight than your conjectures about fanciful meetings with anonymous possessors of aiki in China.
(A.) Once again, give us the proof that supports the *assertion* or give it up, Cady.

(B.) I never said a word about goint to China. There were Chinese members of Omoto Kyo. In Japan.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2007, 11:23 AM   #50
Thomas Campbell
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 407
Offline
Re: Ellis Amdur's Post on Aikido Journal

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
[snip] Some guy may come to Dan's house for a weekend and suddenly get a glimpse of ki and kokyu skills and there will be "nothing in the historic record" to reflect it, right? We do know that Ueshiba visited many places and watched training at many dojos [snip]
Didn't Ueshiba stop by Dan's barn?
  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
Baseline skillset eyrie Non-Aikido Martial Traditions 1633 05-23-2008 01:35 PM
For Ted Ehara - Boundary of your aikido? billybob General 123 12-18-2006 04:52 AM
Aikido minus mysticism: a step forward Red Beetle General 358 10-10-2006 11:43 AM
Ellis Amdur in Maryland Jan. 28 - 29 Jim Sorrentino Seminars 13 02-17-2006 09:57 AM
Proposta organização do Aikido Portugal kimusubi0 Portuguese 0 05-03-2004 03:26 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:21 PM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2014 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