Takeda Sokaku’s Daito Ryu = Ueshiba Morihei’s Aikido . . . but your Daito Ryu/Aikido may not = Theirs!

This text is also available in: Español Français Русский

This week I am going to lay out a stream of evidence that will point out that, not only did Ueshiba Morihei train in and teach the Daito Ryu that he learned from Takeda Sokaku, but he never stopped studying and teaching Takeda Sokaku’s Daito Ryu. Furthermore, the same evidence that leads to this conclusion also points to an even more interesting fact: Ueshiba Morihei’s Aikido, which was in fact Daito Ryu, was arguably the fullest representation and expression of Takeda Sokaku’s art.

That having been said, let me make it abundantly clear that by no means am I asserting that Modern Aikido, nor Modern Daito Ryu, is the fullest representation of Ueshiba Morihei’s Aikido which was Takeda Sokaku’s Daito Ryu. Today, both Aikido and Daito Ryu are represented by a collection of teachers far too diverse and fragmented for any one, regardless of pedigree, to realistically be the sole exemplar of an original expression of the art.  In fact, to assert a difference between Takeda Sokaku’s Daito Ryu and Ueshiba Morihei’s Aikido is to flaunt an ignorance of the facts.

***

According to the reckoning of Aiki historian Stanley Pranin, *  of all of the Takeda Sokaku’s students, Ueshiba Morihei spent the most time (cumulatively) studying directly under his teacher Takeda Sokaku.

According to Takeda Tokimune, “He [Ueshiba] was Sokaku’s favorite student.” “Ueshiba practiced a great deal, more than anyone else.” “Since Ueshiba Sensei was one of Takeda Sokaku’s best pupils and studied under him for a long time, I always used to visit him first whenever I went Tokyo, although I haven’t been there since his death. I guess Takeda Sokaku’s loved Morihei Ueshiba best of all his students.”

Several of Ueshiba’s early students shared that, as late as the nineteen thirties, Ueshiba still issued Daito Ryu scrolls of more than one kind, to select students.

Takeda Tokimune stated that, “Most people do not practice long enough [to earn a teaching license]  A few people have notations written beside their names in our directory, such as “aikijujutsu,” “aikijutsu,” “ogi” or “nito-ryu.” [different sections of Daito Ryu] Usually people practice up through the 118 techniques [Hiden Mokuroku.] You must practice very hard in order to get a license.”

Obviously, in both the Hokkaido and Ayabe “periods” of instruction under Takeda, all students present and training were practicing whatever Takeda was teaching.

Takeda Tokimune provides evidence for this fact, “Oh, here it is… This is the record of our stay there. [Ayabe] We were there for about five or six months. Here, it says that the students of the Ueshiba Juku received instruction in Daito-ryu jujutsu under Takeda Sokaku Sensei. Many of the students were Omoto believers. 

Here [in the records], for example, is Masaharu Taniguchi of Seicho no Ie**. Vice Admiral Seikyo Asano also studied Daito-ryu. These sorts of people also learned the art. Look at this, here is the name “Morihei Ueshiba.” It is clearly written that the training ran from April 28 to

 September 15, 1922, quite a long time. Mr. Ueshiba was also teaching as an assistant then. Sokaku didn’t like the Omoto religion very much so it seems he [sarcastically] referred to the house as Morihei Ueshiba’s “villa.”

More specifically, it is my understanding that it was due to the limitations of the Daito Ryu Jujutsu that Ueshiba Morihei had learned in Hokaido that Ueshiba was experiencing difficulties handling local Sumo players prior to Takeda’s arrival in Ayabe. In Ayabe, Takeda taught Aiki to Ueshiba during his prolonged stay, after which Ueshiba could handle the Sumo players and truly began to stand out among his fellow martial artists.

It should be noted that Takeda Tokimune supposes that the reverse is true: “Actually, there were a number of people from the navy training in Mr. Ueshiba’s dojo. All of the navy members had experience in sumo wrestling and were quite strong. Since Ueshiba would have had difficulty in handling such individuals he asked Takeda Sokaku Sensei to come. These men were huge, while Mr. Ueshiba was smaller than me. I would imagine that he wasn’t able to pin them because he wasn’t using precise techniques. After all, it would be difficult using only aiki.”

I think that Takeda Tokimune “imagines” incorrectly here for a couple of reasons:  Ueshiba and Sagawa, for example, clearly point to their development of Aiki as being that which made their techniques unique, not the other way around.  If it were as Takeda Tokimune asserted, there would be a rather lot of individuals easily handling “huge Sumotori” and the like today.  Sadly, that clearly is NOT the case.  While for Ueshiba and Sagawa it WAS the case, both of whom pointed to Aiki as “the difference that made the difference” for them.

One other reason I think Ueshiba learned Aiki from Takeda at this time is that, even though it is documented that Aiki existed in Daito Ryu prior to Takeda Sokaku’s visit to Ayabe, Ueshiba seems to only begin using the term from that point forward.

This has mistakenly lead some to believe that the term only Aiki came into use as a product of Ueshiba and Takeda’s interaction in Ayabe.  Some went so far as to attribute the term Aiki to be a product of the influence of Onisaburo Deguchi leader of Omoto Kyo at the time.  But Sagawa, not an Omoto member, said that his father learned Aiki from Takeda Sokaku in Hokkaido and that, he too, learned Aiki from Takeda.

Consequently, I think it most likely that it was during Ueshiba’s study under Takeda Sokaku during the Ayabe period that Ueshiba learned Aiki from his teacher.  A further indication is that it was at this time that Ueshiba Morihei received a Kyoju Dairi license from Takeda Sokaku.  This was the highest level of certification in Daito Ryu, at the time it was given.

We also know, from historical evidence, that there were students that trained with both Takeda and Ueshiba at this time, Admiral Takeshita Isamu and Gejo Kosaburo being two of the most prominent. In addition to those, there were also further students that very likely (due to convergence of place and time) trained under both men during this time. It was also reported by several of Ueshiba’s early students that, after the Ayabe period, when Takeda would unexpectedly show up at Ueshiba’s Dojo’s, during Ueshiba’s absence, Takeda would teach in his stead, as was his prerogative as Ueshiba’s Sensei. Consequently, there was a further overlap of students that trained under both men at that time.

It is very likely then that even though the teachers differed (one senior one junior), the content of their teaching was the same, Daito Ryu. Since both men traveled and taught widely, many students of both teachers were not privy to the growing schism that was to become the “Aiki political landscape” of today. Consequently, since there was far more in common than there was different, many from both “sides” assumed that they were all doing the same thing. And, at that time, they were!

When one compares any of the various versions of Budo Renshu (Originally titled Aikijujutsu Densho), Budo, and the Noma Dojo photos, it is readily apparent that the techniques depicted are similar, and in many cases identical, to those depicted in the Soden of (what would later become the Takuma Kai) under the supervision of Hisa Takuma after he began to be taught by Takeda Sokaku. Indeed, Hisa Takuma, Daito Ryu’s first Menkyo Kaiden awarded by Takeda Sokaku himself, adamantly and repeatedly testified that what Ueshiba Morihei taught was identical to what Takeda Sokaku taught. This too explains the level of independence of action and association demonstrated by many of Ueshiba’s earliest students (Tomiki, Mochizuki, Shioda, etc.). After all, their behavior wasn’t significantly different than the example set by their teacher.

One might declare, “Yes, but Ueshiba changed the Daito Ryu that he practiced and taught during the “Pre War Period” into what became the Aikido of the “Post War Period” right? And the Daito Ryu teachers of the “Post Takeda Period” maintained the orthodox traditions of Daito Ryu as passed down for hundreds of years, right?”

The facts answer, “Wrong!”

In 1954, Ueshiba oversaw the publication of “Aikido Ichi no Maki” (First scroll of Aikido.). It is essentially a reprint of the 1935 publication “Budo Renshu” with the Imperial propaganda bits cleaned up and, interestingly, many faces redrawn from frowning to smiling! In other words, Ueshiba’s 1954 Post War public thesis on Aikido (printed approximately a decade before his death) and his Pre War thesis on Aikijujutsu were the SAME. And as was already pointed out, what Ueshiba was teaching at that period of time was identical to that of Takeda Sokaku.

Photographic evidence only confirms this fact. Saito Morihiro found himself technically justified when Stanley Pranin “discovered” the a copy of “Budo.” (It should be noted that for students such as Tomiki, Shirata, and Shioda.  This “New Discovery” was “Old News!”  Tomiki wrote Budo Renshu, Shirata appeared in both Budo and the 1935 film.  And both Shioda and Shirata were present during the making of all!)

So, no, there was no “Post War” technical transformation of Aikido for Ueshiba Morihei.  And, any changes that are evident in the Aikido practiced today clearly are not a product of the example set forth by Ueshiba Morihei.

All it takes is a cursory examination of the various lineages of Daito Ryu existent today to notice a wide variety of emphasis and execution. This fact alone is indicative of heterodoxy. Which of course begs the question, what is Daito Ryu orthodoxy? That answer to that question can be easily ascertained: Orthodox Daito Ryu is the Daito Ryu taught by Takeda Sokaku!

As Menkyo Kaiden of Daito Ryu, Takuma Hisa represented Orthodoxy passed on to him by Takeda Sokaku. Happily, the technical teachings of Hisa Takuma are well documented. In addition to this, there is the technical documentation passed on directly by Ueshiba Morihei, whose teachings the Menkyo Kaiden Takuma adamantly asserted were the same as Takeda Sokaku.

Therefore, if one wishes to study Ueshiba’s Aikido, one would do well to study Takeda Sokaku’s Daito Ryu. And if one wishes to study Takeda Sokaku’s Daito Ryu, one would do well to study Ueshiba Morihei’s Aikido.

But Takeda Sokaku and Ueshiba Morihei are gone. What is one to do? I suggest first studying any materials left behind by these two men. Fortunately, we are finding more historical documentation  with each passing year. (Please visit Chris Li’s sangenkai.com to access free downloads of several texts mentioned in this blog post.) Next, I suggest studying the available recorded information left by Takuma Hisa and other direct students of Takeda and Ueshiba paying particular attention to where they accord with recorded evidence of Takeda Sokaku and Ueshiba Morihei. Pictures, photos, and movies can provide evidence of outward visible movements. Please note that I am not advocating studying under any particular “Chosen One,” although there are plenty in both Daito Ryu and Aikido that would have us believe that they are (or were) “The Chosen One.”

When it comes to the invisible attributes of Daito Ryu/Aikido and, I would argue, these are the more important aspects of the art, I suggest comparing and contrasting available written information especially looking for reappearing patterns and congruence between sources. Next, do the same with oral transmissions. And, finally, and of particular importance, look for those very rare instances of individuals who can reproduce the most notable traits of Takeda Sokaku and Ueshiba Morihei. I will make a survey of these common traits in a later blog.

It is best to remember that an individual’s explanation of what they do and how they understand what they do, is at best a model of that reality. It is not the reality itself. It should come as no surprise then that the varying individual’s explanations and models should differ somewhat. What one should look for us repeating patterns, accordances and similarities.

People, present company included, cannot help but to understand and explain things based upon their own experiences. One doesn’t know what one doesn’t know, until one knows what one doesn’t know. And then one is well on one’s way to knowing it! Although obvious, this is important to note because there are two major consequences that result from this truism:

1. It is entirely possible for well known teacher’s explanations and understandings of Takeda Sokaku and Ueshiba Morihei’s abilities to be completely wrong.

2. It is entirely possible that one’s understanding of one’s teacher’s explanations and teaching to be completely wrong.

To avoid situation #1, be certain to study under a teacher who can consistently and reliably reproduce the abilities of Takeda Sokaku and/or Ueshiba Morihei. And even then remember that that teacher’s explanation is a model of their experiences, they are not the experiences themselves. Your model will likely be your own, just as your experiences are your own.  If one cannot find a teacher who meets these qualifications then one is left trying to find a teacher that comes as close as possible.  In such an instance, it is important to remain open minded with the understanding that, while one’s teacher is doing the best they can, they lack the requisite experience necessary to be fully confident in their understandings.  It is likely that most students will find themselves in this situation.

To avoid situation #2, take one’s present understanding of one’s teacher’s explanation “with a grain of salt” until one can reliably reproduce the abilities of Takeda and/or Ueshiba one’s self. It is best to “hold” one’s understandings loosely so as to provide “room” for the shifts of understanding that come with the improvement and the experiences that that improvement provides.

It is my observation that those that are the most dogmatic (as opposed to being pragmatic, thoughtful, and independently flexible) in their approach to learning that are the least likely to achieve the abilities of their teachers, much less surpass them.  Certainly the examples of Takeda, Ueshiba, and Sagaw reflect independence of thought and full commitment to their individual progress as opposed to loyalty to an organization, etc. 

In the end, of course, regardless of teacher, each individual’s understanding and expression is their’s, and their’s alone.

I will conclude with a personal story:  Once, after attending a Judo practice that my brother in-law Akama Norihiro taught at the central Sendai Police Budo Dojo, we all sat together to have lunch.  Upon hearing from Akama san that I was studying Aikido, one of the police judoka came over to me. He shared that his father, who was also a Sendai police officer, had studied Aikido in the course of his training.  He remembered this fact due to how impressed his father had been by the prodigious feats demonstrated by the Aikido Sensei.  I asked if he remembered the Sensei’s name?  He said he didn’t.  I asked if it was Ueshiba?  He said, “No.”  So I asked, “Tohei?”  Again, he said, “No.”  Then he recalled excitedly, “Ah!, I remember now. It was it was Takeda!”

***

Next blog post I think I will “un-pack” one of Ueshiba’s most common ways of explaining Aiki and one of the most commonly ignored by his students.  It will be entitled:  What is Ichi rei, Ni ki, San gen, Shi kon, Hachi Riki?  And how does it relate to Aiki?

Until then, please share any questions or requests that you have.  And if you find value in my blog, please share https://trueaiki.com  with others that might find it valuable.

There is MUCH more to come!

—

*Stanley Pranin began with the humble publication of AikiNews which eventually grew to become Aikidojournal.com. He is probably the individual most deserving of recognition for beginning the movement to “save” the factual history of Aikido, and for restoring the Daito Ryu’s rightful place in Aikido history, thereby also rekindling the popularity of Daito Ryu.

**Please recall the reference to Seicho no Ie as one of my studies in the “About” section of trueaiki.com.