aikido, aikijitsu??

Ahh sarcasm, the lowest form of whit. If you can disprove anything I've stated in my post fella fill your boots and post away. {edit} But that's a bit hard to do when an admin sin bins you after just 3 minutes on the forum, PMSL

 

Nope no implication intended, I merely pointed out that the founder of aikido first met Takeda in the 1915. Given the large influance that Daito Ryu has upon aikido and, that Ueshiba learned Daito Ryu from Sokaku Takeda, this would make it impossible for the suggestion made by ranrewski to be true.

Regards

 

Cheers, perhaps you might like to tell that to the waterboy.

I just wanted to expand on what I said earlier, I accept of course that many things changed in relation to Bujutsu following the Meiji Restoration however; aikido wan't created simply because of this historical event which happened almost 200 years before the art was officially recognised.

Regards

 

Dave,
I stand corrected and bow to your wisdom and experience.

The dates are way off I acknowledge, however the differences in the arts are still relevant, as are the facts that many of the original Daitoryu Techniques were removed from [the majority of] Aikido teachings.

I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone - and I appreciate your correcting my misunderstandings about Aikdo.

Our style of Aikijujitsu [Spelt like that] comes from Heiwa Jujitsu (Grand Master Hubert Hood, West Indies), Koryu Goshin No Kata (Professor Tomiki) and Koryu Aikido (Nobuyoshi Higashi)

 

Sorry to be pedantic mate but what you imply is that aikido had many Daito Ryu waza and they have been (to use your words) "removed" and that isn't the case at all.

Ueshiba's art is very different to Daito Ryu in many respects but the largest difference is in the ideology of its application. Daito Ryu has many, many techniques; some specifically for 'specific' situations and attacks however; aikido only draws a limited number of physical waza from Daito Ryu and makes them fit an unlimited set of circumstances and situations. Ueshiba also infused his knowledge of the Japanese sword - using those principles as the means of strategy, movement and positioning.

No offence taken mate but it is always best to be in possession of factual data.

Ok, I'm still confused because there's isn't anything called "Koryu Aikido" it just doesn't exist. - The name its self is a contradiction in terms.

Koryu essentially means "old school" in Japanese and this refers to systems used during Japan's feudal era - Pre Meiji Restoration, although the principles of ai and ki existed long before Ueshiba or Takeda ever coined the term; Aikido is a gendai or "modern" art because it was conceived and developed post meiji restoration IE during peace time and was only formally recognised as a martial system in the early 1940's

Secondly (and I say this will all due respect) I have a pathological inability to trust any individual who uses the title "Grand Master" to describe their position or status within a martial art. Especially when it’s associated with Aiki arts.

 

I'm no expert on the Japanese language. And to be honest I couldn't find out much about Koryu Aikido other than a book with the same title. I'd hazard a guess that some people might be taking the term "koryu" a little too litteraly.

I'm also guessing that "koryu" in "Koryu-goshin-no-kata" is refering to "traditional Aikido". Which I can only assume would be Aikido as it was taught directly by O Sensei.

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=1-0865681589-2

 

Indeed mate, Koryu no kata forms part of the Tomiki syllabus and as I understand it links the sporting aspects of the art directly to the more traditional. I'm no authority on Tomiki Ryu but I know a man who is.. Shaun Hoddy aka Shinkai (on these forums), I'm sure he'll provide us with his knowledge on this aspect. But even then that isn't "Koryu Aikido" in terms of aikido as a martial system.

 

ranrewski, in your recent post you elaborated upon the origin of your method of aikijujitsu; I have a couple of questions.

The name of your art clearly implies it is old school with the use of the Japanese term koryu however; I would suggest to you that this is nothing more than a misleading and somewhat miss-use of a generic term.

Japanese originators of martial systems would not, never, ever have used the word koryu to describe what they were developing, teaching or using. Think about it for a moment as it makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

Lifted directly from: http://dwp.bigplanet.com/survival/a1g/

Grandmaster Hubert Hood (Founder: Heiwa Jitsu)

It appears quite clearly to me that the method you study has nothing to do with the Japanese or can it be in any way described as KORYU if the founder of the "jitsu" you study or which influences what your teacher presents was created by someone other than the Japanese.

With due respect to you as an individual, from what you have written in this forum with regards to your art and that of aikido etc etc, you appear to have been fed a considerable amount of waffle from a source which appears to me, certainly on face value, to be less than what it claims to be.

If this is the gentleman who provides a degree of influance to your system Nobuyoshi Higashi there isn't anything Koryu about him or what he teaches with regards to aikido, Tomiki Sensei learned aikido from Ueshiba M. and is considered a first generation aikidoka, if Higashi Sensei learned Tomiki Ryu from Tomiki Sensei then he is a 2nd generation instructor, no way is this considered Koryu.

I note there are a number of other anomalies from the website you posted.

In the video section we see Shihan Ric Cameron wearing montsuki yet over the top of his hakama is a standard and very modern blackbelt, his monstuki has two patches on the sleeves (which shouldn't be there), he talks about macheties and other modern weapons whilst teaching what is otherwise named as a Koryu aikijujitsu art, the hakama of his uke is embroidered on the opposite (wrong) side to which it should be for traditional Japanese standards. I could go on. Basically what I'm pointing out to you is that what I'm looking at appears somewhat suspect and not at all koryu.

I note on your website here that iaido is also taught, perhaps you might like to advise your admin that iaido is not spelt "iado" as it is several times on the site.

Iaido is a generic name and there must be a specific style or Ryu-ha, which is it, is it the gendai seitei of the ZNKR or another style of koryu iai ?

 

Koryu No kata Old school or acient forms are the link to the pre war aiki-budo that Tomiki and Obha studied. The Tomiki/Shodokan system has six koryu no kata Dai Ichi to Dai Roku. As Kenji Tomiki was a professor of education he used the principle that were applied by Kano when he created Judo systemising techniques into various Kata thus making Aikido easier to learn.

Dr Lee once told me that Hideo Ohba played a major part in the creation of these various kata as he had a vast knowlege of Japanese Budo and held 39 dan grades in various systems.

Takeshi Inoue introduced the various koryu no kata to the UK. Inoue also introduced Dr Lee Ah Loi to Tomiki & Ohba with Obha becoming a close friend and mentor to her.

Sadly as Inoue and some of the older Aikidoka are basicly outside of the JAA four of the koryu no kata have been dropped, with the remaining two being given names Koryu Goshin No Kata and koryu Nage No Kata. IMHO I believe that if we continue to go down this route the system will poorer.

Higashi book Koryu Aikido is the Koryu Dai San or Goshin No Kata and does not refer to a style of Aikido

 

There is no martial art called aikijitsu (or aikijutsu).
There is aikijujutsu and there is aikido. That is all.

 

..Aditionally those terms are generic and would have a style specific term for a name, with regards to aikido those might be :

Aikikai, Iwama Shinshin Aiki Shurenkai, Shinshin Toisu, Yoshinkan, Yoseikan, etc etc.

 

well, let me just say...

let me jump in here with a couple of thoughts. One, I thought the Omote religion was a tremendous influence on O Sensei in terms of the direction he took aikido. I hate to disagree but I would consider that an important aspect of the philosopy of aikido.

also, I though aikibujutsu was one term used in the very early years. I am not clear as to the sword style that Ueshiba studied. It is my understanding that he did some study formally but most of his sword work is of his own creation.

finally, with regard to Yoseikan. It is the belief of the son of Minoru Mochizuki that Yoseikan should never have been considered to be an aikido style but a soft jiujitsu instead. I would agree, as a practitioner and teacher of Yoseikan, that it is more jiujitsu than aiki. A final thought/note. Hiroo Mochizuki was also a direct student of Ueshiba during a period of time from 1948 to 1962. Sensei Mochizuki experienced training with O sensei in which the circles of aiki got very very small and very powerful. I believe that even with aikido, there are layers and it is not a gentle art except in the choice of the person applying the technique. It is the attitude of the aikidoka that makes it what it is.

As to how well aiki works against other styles, other people, well that depends again on who is doing the aiki and the spirit with which they apply it.

 

That's right he took, as in singular; no one other than the founder (to my understanding) followed the Oomote religion. The founder never specified that his students adopted his faith or the precepts behind them other than to understand the underlying foundation of aikido is that of conflict resolution without violence, above that, the ideology is no more complex unless you wish to make it so.

Are you disagreeing with yourself, or someone else ? As I said one paragraph above, the philosophy which is associated with aikido... Perhaps more accurately... Specifically the founder of the art is no more complex than how the individual wishes to make it. Indeed aikido can and is studied to very high levels without particular emphasis to philosophical or ideological doctrine.

...And your thoughts extend equally to the philosophical attributes, it’s down the individual.

 

my disagreement is with you David, the religious impact is more than just that Ueshiba alone followed Omote. He did indeed, but there were always religious aspects to aiki> No, it was not and is not a religion in and of itself, but the omote religion so highly influenced the art that it cannot be assigned to O Sensei only, but must be included in any description of Ueshiba's aiki. In the articles and books I have read, it is always included as a very heavy influence in all of O Sensei's actions and study.

 

Perhaps you might elaborate then on how much religious training you've received from your sensei ? And what qualifies he or she to deliver that theological instruction.

How much of this doctrine has contributed to your gradings and examinations ?

Are you now an Oomote disciple given that you consider aikido to be so religiously based that it has impacted on you as a student ?

You are confusing a philosophical ideology created by one person (which I grant you were influenced by religious sources) with religion its self. The two are quite different and, you do not need to accept, adopt or even understand to any great degree; any aspect of the ideological aspects of the art to be able to study it, aikido is a physical BUDO not a religion.

 

agranjero:

Hi! In case anyone is unfamiliar with this area of O Sensei's life, here is a link to the Oomoto website.

http://www.oomoto.or.jp/English/index-en.html

And here's another link to a thread where this topic provided much discussion:
http://www.martialartsplanet.com/fo...ighlight=Oomoto

'The Martial Art of Aikido - Training' thread is discussing this aspect of Aikido right now.
I'll try to summarise my 'take' on this debate:

My view is that Aikido needs a cultural and spiritual context within which to be fully understood, i.e. a 'holistic' view, without which IMHO the art is incomplete as an MA or a Budo.

Dave knows I disagree with him on this - if you don't understand the context, IMHO then you have missed out a vital component of Aikido.

Just as O Sensei wanted 'Aikido' to be the label attached to his art (even though others may have used it) and did not want to be 'Aikijujutsu', I feel if we are not studying the art he taught in full then we are not practising 'Aikido' IMHO. Out of respect for this, we should call it something else which reflects the change.

If we can all lay claim to our practise as 'Aikido' without practising what was intended then there is no case to answer when a Grandmaster Soke claims his art is Aikido too, as the lineage etc becomes irrelevant. If I were able, I would make life much clearer:
'Aikido' should be the label for what O Sensei taught. My MA would then be Shudokan, or Yoshinkan or Aikikai or Tomiki etc. All we would need to do is register and protect those names to avoid duplication.

Being Japanese it is unlikely, logically, that O Sensei's students would need to be told how this or that relates to the Dao, to 'kami' or to 'tengu', as it was part of their culture, religion and folklore. Some may have rejected it and developed along different lines, but IMHO they then rejected a vital element of Aikido. We need to be given that cultural context to understand the full richness of the art. (My only concession is that I personally find little in Oomoto that adds to what already existed in Zen Buddhism and Shinto.)

Others are happy to practice techniques without reference to Zen, Shinto, Oomoto or even 'Ki' as a spiritual aspect of Aikido. Personally, that saddens me, but I respect their right to perform their MA their way.

The above represents my view, and I welcome responses, but I'm not getting drawn into a YES NO YES NO YES NO series of postings.
__________________

 

I didn't mean to start a debate, i really didn't I agree with kiaiki however that the entire context must be taken in a holistic manner or you do not understand what you are practicing.

To answer you question directly David, I am a licensed minister in a Christian, not Omote, denomination and possess multiple college degrees in sociology, so I am not ignorant about philosophical debate or context. I also think that I have had many spiritual lessons from my sensei, a direct student of Minoru Mochizuki and I have had several spiritual talks (to my great honor) with Hiroo Mochizuki. For me, my teachers and the creators of Yoseikan Budo, you cannot separate out the technical from the philosophical/ spiritual. To do so is to not study the entire art.

Hey, honest, I dont want to debate, i just disagree about a few things herein stated is all. For me, Yoseikan is a way of life, a spiritual "do" as well as a physical "do". Please, no offense intended and certainly none taken, just trying to further the discussion.

 

I have stated elswhere that I believe WE MUST NOT CHANGE THE ART WE MUST LET THE ART CHANGE US to deny any spiritual element in aikido is to deny it's most relevent aspect in today's world. To train simply to defeat an attacker is difficult. To train to retain your humanity. compassion and dignity under attack THAT IS A CHALLENGE WORTH ADDRESSING. This is not my opinion this is my belief. ALL of the many shihan I have had the privilage to train under had a spirituality and dignity that I admired and that is why I am still training after many many years.


Respectfully

KOyo