Thoughts on Morihei Ueshiba’s Weapons Practice, etc.

A while back one of our avid True Aiki readers (a professor of engineering, former championship fencer, Aikido sensei and regular True Aiki seminar attendee) wrote a response to one of my posts.  This post is my belated reply.

Fred is a non-native speaker/writer of English, so any errors on his behalf can be forgiven and should be accompanied by admiration for the fact that he can write eloquently in a foreign language.  I, on the other hand, am a native speaker/writer of English, so any errors on my behalf are just that, my errors.

Fred:  Hi Allen, Thanks for the answer.

Fred:  You also raise some good questions.

Fred:  We know Ueshiba Morihei studied some form of yagyu shingan, but their weapon work is not visible in his earlier or later weapon work. it is however suggested that the post war koshi nage form is derived from yagyu shingan tao jutsu,

Allen: Actually, there is “inside” knife work I learned that bears a significant resemblence to Yagyu Shingan Ryu body work.  And, interestingly, our koshi throws bear little resemblance to Yagyu Shingan Ryu or Saito Morihiro’s koshi throws.  

There is no account of what takeda sokaku actually taught to Ueshiba Morihei , but from accounts from other students of that same period we can assume that this included some swordwork from Itto ryu. As there is no evidence that Ueshiba Morihei taught differently from takeda sokaku (and awarded identical certficates) until the mid 1930’s it would appear that for most pre-war students the same training model was used. There is evidence that in the early 1930’s Ueshiba Morihei with tomiki kenji studied some aspects of yagyu shinkage ryu. But the only evidence that he taught this in in the teaching of hikitsuchi sensei. After this there was some study of kashima shinto ryu, which post-war is seen in the teaching of saito morihiro. Although the question is whether this was taught or that Saito morihiro absorbed this as the sole study partner of Ueshiba Morihei in many morning sessions in Iwama.

Allen: Besides standard usage we utilize the ken in either hand, and when used one handed the ken gains greater flexibility.  I learned this usage from Shirata Rinjiro, who learned from Ueshiba Morihei, who learned from Takeda Sokaku who was known to use his ken in either hand (or one in both.)  Once one becomes comfortable using a sword in either hand, engaging with a pugilist becomes more intuitive.  Ueshiba also taught this method to his former son-in-law and kendo great Nakakura Kiyoshi.  Shirata Rinjiro engaged in ken training with Nakakura Kiyoshi while Kiyoshi was Ueshiba’s adopted son-in-law and lived and trained at the Kobukan.  I believe I have seen video of Shioda Gozo using ken in a somewhat similar fashion, handing the ken off to one hand or the other.  I don’t find this surprising seeing as Shirata and Shioda were contemporaries at the time who practiced together, shared insights, ideas, and experiences (including combative encounters.)  

There was more than one individual that knew, and in at least one case taught, Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu  who learned from Ueshiba Morihei.  There are some unique similarities that exist between how I was taught to use the ken and Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu that have been noticed by several students of that art from around the world.  However, I don’t know of any borrowed kata from that ryu.  (But then again, I don’t know any Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu kata, so I have no knowledge upon which to base a comparison.)

{On an aside: When I began my martial training most anyone that picked up a Sam-your-eye weapon and posed with it was considered exotic and knowledgable. Curiously this seemed to be initially adopted by practitioners of “empty handed arts” that would pose with their weapon and swing acrobatically. Not to be one upped, soon arts that claimed to be rooted in weaponry began following suit. As global communication expanded alongside historical scholarship, individuals began to claim antecedents to their swashbuckling. Finally, knowledge of, and access to Koryu schools of weaponry (some legitimate, some not so legitimate) be both appear and expand. Knowledge is a good thing in my opinion. However, the acquisition and/or claim of knowledge is often accompanied by “snob appeal.” “My art has weapons!” “My art has weapons related to a school with a foreign name!” “My art has weapons with “legitimizing” paperwork and a historical pedigree!” All of these claims pointing to an unspoken claim, “My art is better because . . . ” With the further unspoken implication “I AM better because my art is!”

Why? Is an art truly “better” because it has any of these things? Better what? It is quite common, and therefore not so very “special” to think that one’s teachers is better, or art is better, than others. But if one stops to consider, for example a particular sword art, if it is (was) clearly SO superior to all others, why do any other’s exist? Hmmm? Furthermore, just because one’s teacher, art, fancy famous school is “SO” good, does that automatically make you “SO” good?

I rather doubt it. In fact, some of this is “name dropping” is rather curious. Just as analog music reproduction was replaced by the “much superior” digital music reproduction, only to be later “brought back” as “much superior” to that which replaced it in the first place, many “older” martial arts were replaced by the “much superior” modern arts, only to be later “brought back” as “much superior” and BOTH modern martial arts and old martial arts have been dropped by the popular market in favor of the “new” “modern martial art” or MMA (mixed martial arts), which as we can easily see is actually just a redux several “reformations” that came before.

Of course, if one is to make a profit one must define their product as “unique and superior” and sell first the idea, and much less importantly, the product to as many as possible for as much as possible. That too is nothing new.

It is interesting to note that I have been “chastised” on more than one occasion by members of different koryu for discussing “secret teachings” in the open. They, of course, had made an erroneous assumption. After all, how am I to know all of what is considered a “secret teaching” by all of those holding such “secrets?”  I can’t! As a consequence, I have felt compelled to point out that virtually everything I learned from Shirata sensei was classified as “stuff taught by sensei.”  I did not take an oath of secrecy, nor was I ever asked to take such an oath by Shirata sensei.  Any oath of secrecy I took in other schools has been kept.  But to be honest, I haven’t learned any “secret teaching” that I hadn’t already been taught “openly.” Again, I have on multiple occasions faced certain prejudices. They usually boil down to, “If you learned and art named X, you couldn’t possibly have learned this secret teaching.” My experience = Wrong! “You clearly know this secret teaching, so you must have learned it from an assumed source because, as previously stated, you couldn’t possibly have learned it from an art named X! My experience = Wrong! And, further, even though you have surprised me by knowing “this” or “that.” That is an anomaly, and I will continue to assume you couldn’t possibly have learned anything further of value from your teacher because he taught under the art named X and EVERYONE knows that that art does not contain such knowledge. My experience = Wrong again! And I am lead to wonder, “If one’s assumptions were mistaken before, why wouldn’t one begin to consider that one’s other assumptions might also be mistaken???” It doesn’t mean their wrong. But it stands to reason that they “might” be wrong.}

We know of at least one individual that knew and taught Yagyu Shinkage Ryu and also studied with Ueshiba Morihei.  While it has recently asserted by a respected author/martial artist that Hikitsuchi sensei was “the one” Ueshiba Morihei taught Yagyu Shinkage Ryu  related kata, it is a fact that Shirata Rinjiro taught kata derived from Yagyu Shinkage Ryu.  I didn’t realize the historical source of the kata until I recognized the kata while learning a version of the Yagyu Shinkage Ryu kata taught within Takamura Ha Shindo Yoshin Ryu.  I already knew the “storyline” associated with the kata from when I learned the kata in Japan years before.  And, what I learned in Japan years before, more closely resembled what was demonstrated of the kata by a Yagyu Shinkage ryu practitioner that happened to also be present and learning Takamura ha Shindo Yoshin Ryu. So apparently, the “apple didn’t fall far from that ‘tree of knowledge'” that I initially learned from.  I had suspected a connection to Yagyu Shinkage Ryu previously though because Shirata sensei’s ken, as I learned it, was known as Sho Chiku Bai Kenpo.  [This has been attested to earlier in this blog.] But I couldn’t identify the kata because I didn’t know (or at least didn’t know that a knew) any Yagyu Shinkage Ryu kata previous to learning YSR kata in TSYR.

When I asked a question about the two sword work of saotome sensei, George Ledyard told me that saotome sensei was encouraged to study this by himself and that this was not taught to him Ueshiba Morihei.

Allen: My understanding is that Saotome sensei is not the only student of that era that was encouraged by O-sensei to pursue an interest in ken.  Ueshiba’s response makes sense when one takes into consideration the amount of weapons work taught by Ueshiba sensei, Kisshomaru Ueshiba, Tohei Koichi, and other Sensei at the Hombu dojo in Tokyo at that time.  That is to say, many students learned no appreciable weapons usage at that time since emphasis was placed elsewhere.

So except where Ueshiba Morihei taught individuals or more probably used individuals as practice partner post war, the only systematic teaching recorded as being given by Ueshiba Morihei was in the mid 20’s to mid 30’s, which of course is the periode where Shirata sensei studied and where the teaching method of sokaku takeda was followed. This is also evident from the Osaka Asahi training where the training was recorded in the soden, the first 6 volumes are based on the teaching of Ueshiba Morihei which was not changed when sokaku takeda took over.

Allen: This is a significant point that is often ignored, probably due to an abundance of cognitive dissonance.  (The term cognitive dissonance is used to describe the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes.)  What was Ueshiba teaching at that time regardless of the name he called it?  Presumably Daito Ryu.  According to Takuma Hisa what both Ueshiba and Takeda taught was the same.  Obviously, what was recorded in the Soden wasn’t changed.  Presently, the Takuma Kai is a recognized Daito Ryu school.  Presumably that means they teach and train Daito Ryu, which apparently includes the contents of the Soden.  And again, who taught this to Takuma Hisa? Initially, Ueshiba Morihei, and then Takeda Sokaku. Who do we know taught in Ueshiba’s absence? Shirata Rinjiro!  So whatever Shirata Rinjiro taught at that time, under whatever appellation was used, it is at least partially recorded in the Soden and taught within a school of Daito Ryu as presumably Daito Ryu.  Consequently, it comes as no surprise when yudansha of two other Daito Ryu schools look at what I practice and teach and call it Daito Ryu . . . even though I call it Aikido.  (I call it Aikido because that is what Shirata Rinjiro called it when he taught it to me. But then again, there was a period of time when many Daito Ryu partitioners called what they practiced “Aikido.”)

That leaves the question of why the stance/training changed. My personal guess is that mass teaching adopted after the 2nd world war required some mass appeal. That eliminates training methods with deep stance which give you a aching muscles for the first 6 months. Moreover reading Tohei sensei I get the impression he thought he understand how Aikido really worked and could teach this as a mass market product getting the same results as tradiitonal training but without the pain creating a customer base to support himself in the process. As the ki society has no teacher which has comparable skills to tohei sensei this assumption is clearly not justified.

Allen: Again, despite the current presence of an abundance of irrefutable historical evidence to substantiate the fact that while there was a change of instruction at the end of the war, the source of that change *wasn’t* Ueshiba Morihei. I suspect that the commonly held belief that the post-war spread of Aikido reflects the practice of Ueshiba Morihei, and that any change that occurred can be sourced to Morihei Ueshiba, is due to cognitive dissonance.  After all, most of us were told by trusted teachers that what they taught was Morihei Ueshiba’s Aikido.  Which is true, in the sense that I live in George Washington’s America.  

reading payet sensei’s memoires as an uchi deshi of shioda sensei it is also clear that the yoshinkan had two levels of training, demanding training for the (aspiring) teachers and less demaning mass market training for the general populace.

The danger of this approach is off course that the number of people being taught the hard method is low and too low to provide all the teachers for the mass market approach, while some students who have only studied the mass market approach will get to 4th dan and higher and will of necessity teach when there are no ex uchi deshi available.

Allen: I would suggest that the term “uchi deshi” is a term that was used rather loosely.  For example, there were “uchi deshi” that had vastly varying degrees of exposure to Ueshiba Morihei.  Yet most could justifiably use that term.  So, the term itself doesn’t guarantee much.  Also, again, it is not uncommon for admiring students to “wrap” themselves in the prestige of the teacher they so adulate.  I suppose this could be done in a calculating manner, but it can also be done out of one’s sincerity of affection and dedication. As an example, relative to others, I spent a rather limited amount of time in Shirata sensei’s presence. Nevertheless, he had an undeniably profound influence upon my life in general and Aikido life in-particular. As a consequence, I can be sympathetic for those that, while maybe had limited time training directly under Ueshiba Morihei, nevertheless, were profoundly influenced by that time.

I would also suggest that while “hard method” training has its merits, “hard method” training doesn’t have a correlation to the development of Aiki.  For example, Kodo Horikawa is known for his development of Aiki, but his teaching didn’t have a reputation for severity.  (Not to say that it didn’t happen.  Just that that isn’t what his training became known for.) There is another belief that is prevalent in the martial arts that assumes that enduring suffering, and/or abuse is equivalent to development.  While some worthwhile training may result in suffering at times, suffering isn’t the point or goal oriented outcome of the training.  We are well cautioned to keep in mind that, having suffered, it is human nature to often cognitively imbue the experience with “meaning” in an effort to reconcile the suffering one endured, even if it was needless.  This is similar to charging an exorbitant mount for a lesson.  The extreme cost (which causes a psychological suffering of sorts) often prompts an individual to engender the belief that one gained something unique and worth the cost, even if there is no evidence to substantiate that belief.

if you put that in a mathematical model ( I am an engineering professor as you know) you can see that within 40 years the core skills are gone or only present in such a small number of individuals that they cannot be transmitted.

Which creates the problem that you are trying to answer (reading from what you and Tom have been doing this corona break), if you can define the physical basis of the core skills, can you work out a teaching method that teaches these faster and from that work out a method to teach the whole curriculum based on the acquired core skills.

Allen: I (as a teacher) tend to think about the best means by which to transfer whatever knowledge, skill, and ability I may possess at a given time, to those that sincerely desire to possess that knowledge, skill and ability.  I used to think about teaching at least one individual the “whole” curriculum.  Nowadays, I think more about passing on what I can, while continuing to develop myself.  Teaching lots of waza to a few, or teaching a few waza to many was a workable “business model” to some in the past.  But that really has little, if anything, to do with the Aiki or Aiki development I’m interested in.  Presently, I’m really enjoying further developing my Aiki and consequently furthering my understanding of Aiki and how I might teach it.  I seriously doubt I’ll see an end to this pursuit before I die.  And it is so much more interesting to me than practicing waza, kata, and or pontificating philosophy.  Admittedly I still do enjoy randori with Judoka (Judo is beautiful in that, like most martial sports, you either can do, or not. That atmosphere, while certainly not bereft of human ego, does tend to be self regulating.) or engaging in weapons free training!  With any luck, and continued work on Aiki, I’ll be able to continue to play like that into my 70’s.  And in my seventies I’ll want to keep playing into my 80’s!

One can get all worked up about martial arts, but in the end we are all going to die.  So, as long as one is enjoying what one is doing (and for safety’s sake understands one’s limitations), and not (permanently) hurting others, I say, “Go for it!”

It isn’t like any of us can take our MMA belts, dan certificates, or koryu licences with us when “we go.”  So, do what you love, love those you do it with, and enjoy the moment!

The discussion internal/aiki plays a role in this but I am still thinking about the other post that you published yesterday.

regards, fred