Morihei's changing picture.

While doing some research for a project I ran across this. This was taken shortly after he received his teaching license in Daito ryu and also as he started telling everyone he finally understood aiki-according to his son's biographies of him.

I wonder what would happen if some western martial arts organization did this...last year?
And what the public would say?

From Aikido Journal

Quote Historical photo: The amazing chameleon photo of O-Sensei from 1922! By Editor | Contributed 13 Comments As a researcher of aikido history, this photo is one of the most fascinating documents I have ever come across. First of all, a little background. This photo was shot about 1922 inside Morihei's home situated near the Omoto precincts in Ayabe. Morihei is seated in seiza inside the "Ueshiba Juku," his home dojo that marked the beginning of his career as a martial arts teacher. Immediately obvious is Morihei's powerful physique and stern expression that convey a strong impression even 90 years after the fact. You will notice to Morihei's left a sword stand holding three blades, certainly an appropriate accessory for a martial arts dojo. Then behind the displayed swords are a placard with kanji characters. This is where the intrigue begins… What is written? The characters read: "Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu." This, as you will recall is the precursor art to aikido that Morihei studied under Sokaku Takeda Sensei in Hokkaido beginning in 1915. If this is the dojo where Morihei Ueshiba, the Founder of Aikido, taught, why is this "Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu" placard on display there? A fair question. You see Morihei was openly teaching Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu in his "Ueshiba Juku" because aikido had not yet come into being. In fact, he was a certified Daito-ryu instructor. Morihei was just beginning his transitional phase, technically speaking, that would culminate many years later with the creation of aikido. Also, Sokaku Takeda had recently visited Morihei in Ayabe, and they agreed that Ueshiba would use the name "Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu" to refer to his art. Ok, but what is this bit about a "chameleon photo"? Ah, this is the interesting part! To my knowledge, this photo has been published in books and newsletters at least five times. Here's the kicker. The photo appears in four different versions! Four versions? Yes, the Daito-ryu placard first disappears altogether in the first publication of the photo. Then it reappears with the "Daito-ryu" characters missing, leaving only the "Aikijujutsu" characters. What's a poor aikido historian to do? Then, the original photo you see here appears for the first time. Next, some of the characters are again omitted, but not in the same way as the first altered photo. Finally and miraculously, the unretouched photo again resurfaces, hopefully to remain intact. Strange workings of the kamisama? Not exactly. From a historian's standpoint, all of these "miraculous events" can be explained. Briefly, Morihei had a falling out with his teacher Sokaku Takeda that would lead to his distancing himself from his teacher. As a result of this, there has always existed a certain tension between the aikido and Daito-ryu camps despite a surface cordiality. This reticence to give due credit to the significant influence of Daito-ryu on modern aikido has existed for many years, and was not surprisingly inherited by the Second Doshu Kisshomaru Ueshiba. These shenanigans with this famous photo took place in the period of the 1960s through the 1980s when Daito-ryu's role in the evolution of aikido was little known. I believe this explains the psychology behind the photo tinkering. Now, I don't believe it would be possible to do such a thing since the relationship between Morihei Ueshiba and Sokaku Takeda has been well documented. Early in my career, I published one of these altered versions of the photo perfectly innocently, and it got me into quite a pickle! Anyway, as Paul Harvey used to say, "Now you know the rest of the story!"

As is typical Stanley is understated and just presents. But on any other day, the effort to fool the public and falsely present something should be taken seriously. That mindset, the ease with which someone could do it should be taken into account when examining any other material an organization like that would produce.

Interesting... Where can we see the other versions?

Hey Dan, funny you brought this one up. I was doing some research as well, trying to look into the architecture of the old Kobukan dojo (pretty hard to find any info on that), anyway, as I was looking for photographs, I stumbled on this one and was caught by the spiraling up snake/dragon calligraphy in the back. I knew this photograph from at least two books (the one I flipped through today was the bio by Kisshomaru, A Life in Aikido p. 146) in which the calligraphy doesn't show. Here's an example. In the book it even shows the ridges of what appears to be some piece of white paper or maybe even as simple as tape (cutting of a tiny piece of Ueshiba's skull - if you look close enough).

Significant? I don't know. John Stevens suggested (with a questionmark added) that it might be brushed by Onisaburo Deguchi (Invincible Warrior p.108). Beyond that, I shan't speculate. Just something that caught my eye yesterday.
FWIW

Victors write the history...... This tendency is not unique to Japan. As a matter of fact, photo editing arose out of Stalin's maniacal purge. He would not only order the death of people, but had all records associated with those people destroyed and had people develop photo editing so that any photo records found were retouched to erase the dead out of pictures.

the nice thing about the internet is that the availability of information typically exceeds people's abilities to distort and change that information. Stanley is a man of true character for posting the truth about matters. I am sure that he is number one of Aikikai's christmas card list ...

Marc Abrams

Why is this important?

Mary Eastland wrote: Why is this important?

John 8:32

I find it interesting and notable that the tsuka of the katana that are in the katanakake in the photo shown in DH's post are pointing to the right.

Marc Abrams wrote: Victors write the history...... This tendency is not unique to Japan. As a matter of fact, photo editing arose out of Stalin's maniacal purge. He would not only order the death of people, but had all records associated with those people destroyed and had people develop photo editing so that any photo records found were retouched to erase the dead out of pictures. the nice thing about the internet is that the availability of information typically exceeds people's abilities to distort and change that information. Stanley is a man of true character for posting the truth about matters. I am sure that he is number one of Aikikai's christmas card list ... Marc Abrams

Hmmm...it was said that they asked Saito to talk to him and threaten to remove his ranks....this for telling the truth to foreigners. Saito refused.
I have never trusted -at face value- a single thing the aikikai says, prints, or puts out. Their motives, standards and the levels to which they will go to pursue an agenda have made them more like a very distasteful, self serving, propaganda machine to me.

Then again we have Sagawa being told never to teach white people (by Takeda) and he himself not wanting his book ever translated. Here is yet another quote courtesy Chris Li
8/30/1964

(When the French Ambassador had requested instruction)
"Don't teach foreigners. This is secret. That is what I think and it will not change."

Whats worse; not teaching foreigners at all, or pretending to and not really teaching the essence of the arts at all?
Dan

Ernesto Lemke wrote: Hey Dan, funny you brought this one up. I was doing some research as well, trying to look into the architecture of the old Kobukan dojo (pretty hard to find any info on that), anyway, as I was looking for photographs, I stumbled on this one and was caught by the spiraling up snake/dragon calligraphy in the back. I knew this photograph from at least two books (the one I flipped through today was the bio by Kisshomaru, A Life in Aikido p. 146) in which the calligraphy doesn't show. Here's an example. In the book it even shows the ridges of what appears to be some piece of white paper or maybe even as simple as tape (cutting of a tiny piece of Ueshiba's skull - if you look close enough). Significant? I don't know. John Stevens suggested (with a questionmark added) that it might be brushed by Onisaburo Deguchi (Invincible Warrior p.108). Beyond that, I shan't speculate. Just something that caught my eye yesterday. FWIW

It looks like Deguchi's work, but John would be a better authority for that, he some that I've seen. Anyway, it's a "magic dragon". The same picture is in the Japanese version of A Life in Aikido, and it does look like the dragon is obscured (I'm not sure why anybody would do that, however).

Best,

Chris

Dan Harden wrote: Then again we have Sagawa being told never to teach white people (by Takeda) and he himself not wanting his book ever translated. Here is yet another quote courtesy Chris Li 8/30/1964 (When the French Ambassador had requested instruction) "Don't teach foreigners. This is secret. That is what I think and it will not change." Whats worse; not teaching foreigners at all, or pretending to and not really teaching the essence of the arts at all? Dan

Just to clarify, the above is a quote from Yukiyoshi Sagawa.

Best,

Chris

Christopher Li wrote: ... it does look like the dragon is obscured (I'm not sure why anybody would do that, however).

I'm guessing aesthetics. The way the second photo is cropped, you'd have this inexplicable black stripe sticking out of his head if you didn't white it out, because most of the dragon is missing.

Another classic example is http://www.koryu.com/library/mskoss3.html

Best,

Chris

It should be noted that Pranin Sensei in this column did not place the blame on Doshu (as those who attribute a conspiracy to cut O Sensei out of the loop have suggested previously) but, rather, acknowledged that O Sensei had a falling out with Takeda Sensei and that Doshu inherited this. For all we know the photo was altered on orders of O Sensei.

While the motives for altering the photo are unclear, was probably unwise, and may have been simple spite, it does not follow that altering the phot is evidence of a conspiracy to hide from the world the historical connections to Jujitsu. In fact, in the martial arts community in Japan, doing so would have been Impossible. Everyone can recognize nikyo, for example. It is very hard to believe that anyone would have thought it possible to erase the history or that they would have attempted to do so. Moreover, as this interview from 1957 demonstrates (http://www.aikidofaq.com/interviews/interviews.html), they were speaking openly of O Sensei's background. There are numerous examples were they did so during this period. My person take on the altering of the photo was that it was a very Japanese attempt to avoid awkwardness. It may also have simply been an insult towards Takeda Sensei, though I don't favor that explanation. But this alone is hardly conclusive evidence of some attempted conspiracy to rewrite history.

While on the subject, as the interview cited above indicates, while many of the techniques of Aikido evolved out of Daito Ru, O Sensei changed them so that in the context of Aikido they were performed in a significantly different manner. In fact we know that O Sensei cautioned us repeatedly not to get too hung up on techniques as Take Muso Aiki transcends technique. Aikido mimics the movement of the sword and other weapons as well as the movements of nature. Modern Aikido owes far less to Daito Ru. So the history is not the history of O Sensei rebranding Daito Ru. It is the history of his creating a new and distinctive art.

Ken McGrew wrote: While the motives for altering the photo are unclear, was probably unwise, and may have been simple spite, it does not follow that altering the phot is evidence of a conspiracy to hide from the world the historical connections to Jujitsu. In fact, in the martial arts community in Japan, doing so would have been Impossible. Everyone can recognize nikyo, for example. It is very hard to believe that anyone would have thought it possible to erase the history or that they would have attempted to do so. Moreover, as this interview from 1957 demonstrates (http://www.aikidofaq.com/interviews/interviews.html), they were speaking openly of O Sensei's background. There are numerous examples were they did so during this period.

It's not so much a matter of hiding as it is a matter of spin. The interview that you cite has Ueshiba saying that he trained with Takeda "for 30 days" and later became a student. It makes no mention of Takeda after 1918. It doesn't mention that Ueshiba was awarding Daito-ryu scrolls as late as 1937 (some 20 years later), that the one and only art that he ever taught as a licensed instructor was Daito-ryu, or that the one and only art that he ever issued certificates in (outside of his own art) was Daito-ryu. Quite a heavy spin, if you ask me.

Ken McGrew wrote: While on the subject, as the interview cited above indicates, while many of the techniques of Aikido evolved out of Daito Ru, O Sensei changed them so that in the context of Aikido they were performed in a significantly different manner. In fact we know that O Sensei cautioned us repeatedly not to get too hung up on techniques as Take Muso Aiki transcends technique. Aikido mimics the movement of the sword and other weapons as well as the movements of nature. Modern Aikido owes far less to Daito Ru. So the history is not the history of O Sensei rebranding Daito Ru. It is the history of his creating a new and distinctive art.

Really, "Take Muso Aiki"?

Best,

Chris

We are all familiar with the various claims that have been made about Doshu destroying the art against the desires or alternatively knowledge of O Sensei. He has been accused of much more than spin in these forums. This column by Pranin Sensei as well as the interview I posted both demonstrate that it wasn't Doshu alone but with O Sensei that any mistakes were communicated. Remember that in the interview I posted O Sensei and Doshu were both there playing off each others comments and agreeing on what was said.

I don't think the photo should have been altered and I think that it's important to get dates and training histories accurate. So the record has been corrected and that is good.

But the effort to read too much into these things must be opposed. As I stated, it would be impossible to hide historical connection to Jujitsu in the Japanese martial arts community given that anyone who say a basic technique would recognize it. Given this it is not likely that the intention was to hide this history. Whether O Sensei spend a week or 20 years in Jujitsu, the influence is obvious in the techniques. There's no way to hide that and therefore no reason to try to do so. I think it's more likely, therefore, that their motives were something else.

None of this provides much support for the often repeated notion that Aikido is simply Daito Ru rebranded. The only reason that some people bring up things like this non stop is because they hope to support their claims, which include the claim that Aikido is really just Daito Ru, or worse is a watered down version of Daito Ru. This is fundamentally mistaken. Aikido draws far more on the evolving interactions between two swordsmen than it does Daito Ru. O Sensei said so. Moreover, this can be seen as obviously as the techniques of Jujitsu can be seen in Aikido.

Even if these claims were correct, there can be no doubt that O Sensei did not believe this (as the interview I posted, and many other sources that have been discussed in the past, demonstrate). If people think that O Sensei was just teaching a watered down version of Daito Ru as a sort of con, or if they think O Sensei had deluded himself into falsely believing he had developed something new, then why do they post on this Aikido related forum rather than a Daito Ru forum? Why don't they leave Aikido to the rest of us to waist our time on and go happily train in Daito Ru? Those of us who train in Aikido owe a certain respect and loyalty to the founder. Or move on.

I don't understand the question that Chris ended his post with. O Sensei was very clear on Aikido not being reducible to techniques. When he said there were 10,000 techniques in Aikido what he was referring to were variations pieced together in unique ways in spontaneous situations. Really, there are millions of variations, even infinite variations, of appropriate responses in a given and changing dynamic situation. The ability to spontaneously create and respond and to modify techniques and movements in this manner is the physical manifestation of Take Muso Aiki.

Ken McGrew wrote: I don't understand the question that Chris ended his post with. O Sensei was very clear on Aikido not being reducible to techniques. When he said there were 10,000 techniques in Aikido what he was referring to were variations pieced together in unique ways in spontaneous situations. Really, there are millions of variations, even infinite variations, of appropriate responses in a given and changing dynamic situation. The ability to spontaneously create and respond and to modify techniques and movements in this manner is the physical manifestation of Take Muso Aiki.

Because there's no such thing as "Taku Muso Aiki", it's "Take Musu Aiki". There's also no such thing as "Daito Ru" - perhaps you mean "Daito Ryu"?

Best,

Chris

Oh boy. This just isn't going to improve is it?

Ken McGrew wrote: We are all familiar with the various claims that have been made about Doshu destroying the art against the desires or alternatively knowledge of O Sensei. He has been accused of much more than spin in these forums. This column by Pranin Sensei as well as the interview I posted both demonstrate that it wasn't Doshu alone but with O Sensei that any mistakes were communicated. Remember that in the interview I posted O Sensei and Doshu were both there playing off each others comments and agreeing on what was said.

Good grief
No one who was there actually agrees with you. None... of the prewar guys wanted to practice with Kisshomaru. Osensei had to plead with Shirata for his support. They openly stated that what Kisshomaru was doing was not aikido. Or as Mochizuki put it That's not the real aikido. I am sure he would have been delighted to hear the opinions of a foreign san dan on the matter. His view never changed. There is a never ending string of events and materials put out by Doshu, reducing that connection to DR vetted by a never ending string of Japanese Shihan. There is no doubt that it was a calculated effort to do so. Maybe you missed the Aikido Journal interview where he apologized for some of these things. What....was he apologizing.....for?
My favorite take on the public versus insider Japanese common knoweldge...is the Shihan who told Peter Goldsbury something like. "So now that your here, your going to learn the truth about Aikido."

I don't think the photo should have been altered and I think that it's important to get dates and training histories accurate. So the record has been corrected and that is good.But the effort to read too much into these things must be opposed.

Oppossed? good luck with that! A lot more than that was tampered with. Again the real question behind the event is....who and why?
Anyone who would bother to do that over and over demonstrated a capability to do all kinds of things. As a criminal in an on going investigation, it would open you up to all sorts of questioning as your lack of integrity and flat out dishonesty would have thus been firmly established. There's nothing left to defend.

As I stated, it would be impossible to hide historical connection to Jujitsu in the Japanese martial arts community given that anyone who say a basic technique would recognize it. Given this it is not likely that the intention was to hide this history. Whether O Sensei spend a week or 20 years in Jujitsu, the influence is obvious in the techniques. There's no way to hide that and therefore no reason to try to do so. I think it's more likely, therefore, that their motives were something else.

You simply do not know what you are talking about. Aikido has little in common with Classical Japanese jujutsu, nor does DR. However Aikido DOES look like Daito ryu with the damaging parts removed.
The reason Ueshiba's art is called aikido is because it looked so different from jujutsu. A Japanese committee (used to seeing real jujutsu) named aiki...do, as a category at an embu, for the very reason I oultined above. It looked nothing like Koryu jujutsu and it didn't look like the modern judo or kendo either. So they invented a categoy called the way of aiki. Ueshiba loved it and it stuck. I think it was a beautiful happenstance as the name is beautiful to me.

None of this provides much support for the often repeated notion that Aikido is simply Daito Ru rebranded. The only reason that some people bring up things like this non stop is because they hope to support their claims, which include the claim that Aikido is really just Daito Ru, or worse is a watered down version of Daito Ru. This is fundamentally mistaken. Aikido draws far more on the evolving interactions between two swordsmen than it does Daito Ru. O Sensei said so. Moreover, this can be seen as obviously as the techniques of Jujitsu can be seen in Aikido.

Aikido has little to do with Japanese swordsmanship-well other than in name only. You are ASU correct? If you think your art is Japanese swordsmanship you are gravely mistaken. Your own teacher stated he made it all up. Not fraudulently, but honestly and forthrightly stated to avoid just this type of confusion. He did it for a calculated reason to inform and improve his own Aikido. That sir, is the reason so many koryu people can talk with ASU people and get along so well with them without the typical baggage and confusion seen elsewhere under other Japanese shihan. Your teacher...was a stand-up guy. I suggest you talk with ASU teachers like Ledyard or Drachman sensei (who translated much of the material) who have both also studied Koryu, so you can get a better handle on the notion of swordsmanship and aikido.

FWIW, The Japanese know the difference as well. They just don't usually tell foreigners. They come here and play Japanese guy holding a sword in his hand and take on much too much presumed expertise than they should- to unsuspecting audiences- really well. Here is an example of a discussion at meeting of All Japanese Shihan;
Kuroiwa Yoshio got up and said, "I think we should stop doing these sword techniques at Aikido demos. There are probably real swordsmen in the audience and it is an insult to them, because they could cut anyone in the room in two." There was dead silence, and then after a long pause, Doshu changed the subject. After the meeting, Iimura, who taught aikido at the Budokan, said, "I thought there was going to be a bloodbath. I can't believe you got away with that." More interesting, perhaps, was that Saito Morihiro approached him and said, "Yoku Itte kuremashita." which means, essentially, "You did me/us a real favor in saying that." Of course, nothing changed.
Aiki weapons help you to express your aikido. That's all they are. Stop trying to make them something they are not. They are not classical Samurai weapons, they do not function like classical weapons. Every few years, guys like you continue to show up and spout nonsense like this until someone gets a hold of them and either gives them an education or destroys them with real classical weapons work by handing them their ass. Well actually, defeated or no, it doesn't make a modern invention, classical Japanese swordsmanshp does it? At this stage in your career you need to be asking more questions than making statements. It is part of what you need to do to support your position as a representative of your teacher. This?.....simply will not do and is NOT going over well in front of some pretty serious people in your and other organizations.

Even if these claims were correct, there can be no doubt that O Sensei did not believe this (as the interview I posted, and many other sources that have been discussed in the past, demonstrate). If people think that O Sensei was just teaching a watered down version of Daito Ru as a sort of con, or if they think O Sensei had deluded himself into falsely believing he had developed something new, then why do they post on this Aikido related forum rather than a Daito Ru forum? Why don't they leave Aikido to the rest of us to waist our time on and go happily train in Daito Ru? Those of us who train in Aikido owe a certain respect and loyalty to the founder. Or move on.

I don't agree with your characterization of our views anyway, as is typical with you they are more of a restated charachature of our views then our real views. But you are essentially saying even if we are right....you don't care and want to be left in the dark? That's simply incredible.

I don't understand the question that Chris ended his post with. O Sensei was very clear on Aikido not being reducible to techniques. When he said there were 10,000 techniques in Aikido what he was referring to were variations pieced together in unique ways in spontaneous situations. Really, there are millions of variations, even infinite variations, of appropriate responses in a given and changing dynamic situation. The ability to spontaneously create and respond and to modify techniques and movements in this manner is the physical manifestation of Take Muso Aiki.

Wrong again. Actually your founder was talking about something different..aiki! Aiki is what creates spontaneity. But that's a topic best reserved for those in aikido practicing what he was actually talking about, not strung together waza. It was Kisshomaru who codified and made a bland collection of neutral waza, lacking personal expression as a sort of standard off of which people can riff. It was an organizational move. And he has kept it that way through to today.
Dan

Ken McGrew wrote: This column by Pranin Sensei as well as the interview I posted both demonstrate that it wasn't Doshu alone but with O Sensei that any mistakes were communicated. Remember that in the interview I posted O Sensei and Doshu were both there playing off each others comments and agreeing on what was said.

If you're saying that Ueshiba was partially responsible for the blurring of the history of his art, then I'd certainly agree. What's your point?

Best,

Chris

Stan Pranin has posted some of the altered photographs at http://blog.aikidojournal.com/2012/0...tanley-pranin/

Best,

Chris

Christopher Li wrote: If you're saying that Ueshiba was partially responsible for the blurring of the history of his art, then I'd certainly agree. What's your point? Best, Chris

It is weird, I am on the floor with ASU people world over and as a group, they all sort of "get it." Their history isn't all goofy, their understanding of Saotome's ideas are consistent and clear...you can talk with them about koryu, Daito ryu and Aikido and minus small differences maybe here and there, it's more or less,...yup yup yup.
Also interesting is how many of them do or did koryu jujutsu, koryu weapons, Systema, Daito ryu, BJJ. They are an educated, and experienced, intercommunicating bunch....then. I can never figure this guys arguments out. I've really tried to, they're just all over the place in so many areas that I don't know where to begin.
Dan

From the now expanded Aikido Journal article showing some of the altered photo's; the last comment.

There is yet another alterned version of the photo that is not in my possession. It was published in a book titled “Aikido Shintei,” by Kisshomaru Ueshiba that appeared in the late 80s. In that version, yet a different alteration was published with the “ryu” character of “Daito-ryu” being cut in half, and the characters for “Aikijujutsu” appearing below.

Early 60's to late 80's
That's almost thirty years of tampering, the last long after Ueshiba had passed. Isn't it interesting that along came Stan with his questions and camera and....it all stopped.
What does that say?

Support Aikido Journal. It's ridiculously inexpensive considering the incredible research material, the hundreds of thousands of hours of leg work all over Japan, with teachers that will never be interviewed again, all translated and available with a search engine, at the push of button.
Without Stan we would have a very different-most likely fraudulant -history of the art as put out by the Aikikai, and we would be in the dark.
Thank you Stan.
Dan

Dan Harden wrote: From the now expanded Aikido Journal article showing some of the altered photo's; the last comment. There is yet another alterned version of the photo that is not in my possession. It was published in a book titled “Aikido Shintei,” by Kisshomaru Ueshiba that appeared in the late 80s. In that version, yet a different alteration was published with the “ryu” character of “Daito-ryu” being cut in half, and the characters for “Aikijujutsu” appearing below. Early 60's to late 80's That's almost thirty years of tampering, the last long after Ueshiba had passed. Isn't it interesting that along came Stan with his questions and camera and....it all stopped. What does that say?

I've got a copy of Aikido Shintei at home, I'll have to take a look at it later.

Best,

Chris

I can't find the photo in "The Art of Aikido: Principles and Essential Techniques" (ISBN 4-7700-2945-4) published in 2004, which claims to be originally published in Japanese as Aikido Shintei by Kodansha Ltd, in 1986.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: I can't find the photo in "The Art of Aikido: Principles and Essential Techniques" (ISBN 4-7700-2945-4) published in 2004, which claims to be originally published in Japanese as Aikido Shintei by Kodansha Ltd, in 1986.

I haven't really looked at the English version of Aikido Shintei, but it's quite different from the Japanese version - mainly for cost cutting reasons.

Best,

Chris

The photograph appears on p. 219. The dark background has been extended to cover half the sign, with only the bottom part of the ryuu character (of Daitou ryuu) being visible.