A Unified Field Theory: Aiki and Weapons - Allegro vivace e leggiero

This article should now be considered a work-in-progress, of interest both for the discussion it engendered as well as presenting an earlier perspective on my work. I have radically revised this essay in my new book, HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT. Some of the conclusions I have reached are somewhat at variance to what you will find here. Those interested in the book can find it at www.edgework.info/buy.html

PART I - Takeda Sokaku: The Embodiment of Gokui (Essential Principals)

Whether Takeda Sokaku ever studied any, as yet, unnamed classical jujutsu — I believe he did, for whatever that’s worth - or if he truly was the lineal successor of an archaic martial art that later was renamed Daito-ryu — are questions still unanswered. However, it is quite clear that he studied with a number of classically trained swordsmen and other weapons masters from a number of ryu.

Early accounts vary, but Takeda is said to have studied Hozoin Takada-ryu sojutsu (spear) under his father, Sokichi, along with training in sword, staff and sumo. In his teen years, he trained primarily in various kenjutsu ryu, starting with the Ono-ha Itto-ryu, then later the Jikishinkage-ryu, followed by number of others, as a formal enrollee, as a dojo visitor, as a colleague, as an auditor, so to speak, of his own student’s skills that they brought with them into his dojo, and finally, learning others’ weaknesses while crossing weapons.

Given how difficult it is to learn more than one ryu, how was it possible for Takeda to do justice to so many? Significantly, a consideration of the kenjutsu teachers and ryu that he was associated reveals a common thread: nearly all, in the late-Edo and early Meiji period, specialized in shinai geikko — competition with bamboo replicas of weapons. In other words, Takeda’s training was probably far less kata based than that learned in the heat of free-style practice.

Sakakibara Kenkichi’s Jikishinkage-ryu dojo in Tokyo was perhaps the center of martial arts in eastern Japan in the early Meiji period. According to Takeda Tokimune, due to Sakakibara’s sponsorship of the gekken kogyo (publicly displayed free-style competitions between practitioners of different ryu), as well as Sakakibara’s personal introductions to more reclusive teachers, Takeda had the opportunity to meet many of the most skilled practitioners of martial arts, thereby enabling him to learn, formally and informally, the complete panoply of weaponry and combative techniques extant in the Meiji period.

Kenjutsu in the 19th century was, more often than not, practiced much like jujutsu in the same period. Individual dojos were associated with one or another ryu. There was rarely a headmaster (soke) of the ryu in question — rather, shihan maintained their dojos as independent entities. They practiced kata, but they also practiced a lot of free-style. Kenjutsu schools that only practiced kata were often backwater, rural schools, or had few students compared to those who practiced competitive fighting. For example, Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto-ryu, these days emblematic of the classical kenjutsu school, was, in the Meiji period, an unimportant old-fashioned ryu practiced by country bumpkins.

Itinerant martial artists, either carrying the protective equipment now associated with kendo, or merely a tattered practice uniform in the case of jujutsu, would visit dojos and ask for a “lesson.” (FOOTNOTE 1) This was both a challenge and a way, hopefully, to get a free meal and a place to sleep. The visitor, if he were smart, would take a careful walk around the dojo, because no one would tell him about the nails sticking out from the floor, the loose boards, or other irregularities. It was his responsibility, not his host’s, to make sure he didn’t get impaled or otherwise damaged by such “traps” in the environment. The lesson he solicited entailed “running the line,” so to speak: engaging in competition with the students of the dojo, from weak to strong. In the case of jujutsu, atemi were usually eschewed, but throws, locks and chokes were permitted — as was throwing someone out into the garden onto the rocks, or what have you. Any broken arms or other injuries would most likely be roughly or skillfully set, depending on the knowledge of the teacher, and the challenger either sent on his way or invited to stay a while and recuperate. In the case of kenjutsu, defeat was generally conceded to be a killing blow, were real weapons used. Even in those days, however, there were informal rules: one generally targeted the armored areas of the opponent.

If the challenger were incompetent or a coward, he might be driven out, even beaten. However, if he acquitted himself well, he might still be invited to stay for a few days or weeks and train with the members of the school, even if he were defeated midway. If he completely ran the line of the students, he might either fight the teacher, or the teacher, wisely, would simply defer and would invite him to teach his students for a period of time. This was a volatile situation, and in some circumstances, the bouts might escalate to unarmored fights with bokken, resulting in serious injuries. If the challenger defeated the teacher, he might still be invited to stay, but on the contrary, he also ran the risk of having to fight off a mass attack by the defeated teacher’s outraged students. According to Takeda Tokimune, Sokaku was actually quite sensitive to the “face” of the shihan whom he would challenge — he would win the first match, and then gracefully lose the next two of the best-out-of-three bouts. The instructor, recognizing both Takeda’s skill and tact, would invite him to stay and teach his students for a period of time. On the other hand, Takeda also had a special shinai with a slender rod of copper in the center, in case things got nasty.

Whatever caveats one might have regarding competitive training, one thing is sure: nothing helps one pare away extraneous material than the constant attempt to achieve victory against top-level opponents (consider the “mixed-martial arts” scene today, in which, every year, both new techniques are created and the general technical level increases due to cross-training and competitive matches).

Takeda Sokaku’s sword was tried-and-tested, based primarily on personal skill and experience, not something merely handed down over generations through kata alone. In his biography, for example, he is described as citing an epiphany using a bokken against multiple opponents with spears where he realized the power and the utility of Jikishinkage-ryu’s jodan posture, as opposed to the seigan posture of Ono-ha Itto-ryu that he had previously favored in such situations. He made the kata — or at least certain waza within kata — live again.

Takeda’s sword was unique in another way. He was left-handed, and used a left/right single-handed style with the shinai that both confounded and infuriated opponents. He was known to shift from right to left hand, fighting ambidextrously. (FOOTNOTE 2)

Based on what his succssors display today, as well as anecdotal accounts, Takeda seems to have taught his close students something about weapons, either through casual demonstration of his skills or perhaps, through formal training. But there is conflicting information, at least for outsiders, whether he actually taught a systematic method of weapons usage akin to the way he taught his Daito-ryu empty-handed techniques. Almost all accounts of his actual lessons to others concern empty-handed techniques or those concerning a dagger; nonetheless, Takeda Tokimune does cite specific instances when, during his travels, Sokaku taught one or another individual a specific weapon. Takeda Tokimune rather significantly also described these lessons in kusarigama, staff or other weapons as being instruction outside the “aiki” arts. Admittedly, I am drawing an inference from incomplete data, but I have read no accounts whatsoever of Takeda teaching “x kata” of the Ono-ha Itto-ryu, or “y kata” of the Kyoshin Meichi-ryu to his students.

Takeda made the teaching of principles (gokui) into an art in itself. In most classical bugei, one is literally locked into a form through the practice of kata and this is true even in ryu that have so-called freestyle-training, because it almost always is required to follow certain rules and parameters. A wonderful example of this, by the way, is the kata-and-free-style practice of the Maniwa Nen-ryu. Kata are, from one perspective, a cage, and the gokui, the key. The gokui unlock the kata to make the successor of a ryu able to freely apply their principles. Takeda taught — at least to his inner students — the ability to unlock movement and physical organization — the gokui of general “body mechanics” rather than that of a specific ryu. In other words, Takeda taught people how to apply these subtle methods (aiki) so that one could use them in any interaction of one human body to another, either armed or unarmed. (FOOTNOTE 3)

A significant outstanding question is that concerning the extent of weapons practice within current Daito-ryu factions, and where they, variously, came from. Aikido, specifically, will be taken up in Part II of this blog. As I am not a member of any Daito-ryu faction, each item that follows, therefore, should be accompanied by the caveat “According to my best understanding, based on requested-to-remain-anonymous informants, my observations of Daito-ryu in public demonstrations, and my reading of interviews and other literature concerning Daito-ryu:”

• Concerning the association of orthodox Ono-ha Itto-ryu with Daito-ryu started with Takeda Tokimune. I very much doubt that Takeda Sokaku formally taught this ryu to his son or others in a systematized form, particularly as his own individual kenjutsu was so far ‘beyond” this ryu. Ono-ha Itto-ryu was NOT Takeda Sokaku’s kenjutsu — it was merely a very important school that he studied, among many others, in his younger days.

• The mainline mokuroku does list “Nito-ryu” as part of the Daito-ryu syllabus. There are a number of alternative explanations of this.

a. One might claim that it is an example of more ancient “Daito-ryu,” passed down under another name, and previously practiced by Aizu-han bushi. However, no evidence has ever been publicly presented to support this idea, nor has it even been asserted by Daito-ryu practitioners.

b. It might also be asserted that Takeda Sokaku formally studied some form of Nito-ryu and he, or his successors, added these methods to the Daito-ryu syllabus. This is certainly possible — but there is no record of his initiation in the rather rare Nito-ryu schools that existed, nor is it necessary for an explanation of his skill.

I prefer a more parsimonious explanation.

c. Nito-ryu is one-handed swordsmanship, done with both hands at once. Takeda was, as previously outlined, an expert at one-handed kenjutsu with either hand. This was his preferred method of fighting, and is, I believe, a mark of his natural genius. His skills may have been enhanced or augmented through contact with members of the Dai-Nippon Butokuden, substantial numbers of who were his students. Many pre-war kendoka avidly researched Nito-ryu with shinai. It is also possible that, either among the many teachers he visited in his younger days, or among his many students, at least in seminars, were one or more practitioners of some form of Nito-ryu kenjutsu. As outlined above, Takeda learned from such people “in the moment” — through cross-training exchanges, inquiry and shiai. In short, Nito-ryu is Takeda doing, two-at-once, what he did single-handed all the time.

• To the best of my knowledge, weapons training as kenjutsu or jojutsu is not a major part of the Takumakai. NOTE: Gary Gabelhouse has announced that this summer, Radix Press will be releasing an English language version of Ohgami Kenichi’s authorized biography of Hisa Takuma, based on interviews and correspondence. This will surely illuminate a lot regarding the history of both Ueshiba Morihei and Takeda Sokaku, and hopefully, the questions of Takeda’s and Ueshiba’s training with weapons will be among the areas covered.

• I have been told conflicting accounts of training with weapons in the Kodokai and Sagawa Dojo. One of my informants in Japan stated that both dojo use weaponry as an exemplar of aiki principles, including weapons taking methods, using the weapon to throw as an extension of the body, and also, two-person demonstration of principles of movement and tai-sabaki, etc. On the other hand, (and this may be a difference of nuance in what they have observed, rather than substance), a second informant stated to me that the Sagawa dojo claims to be a comprehensive system using practical methods using a number of weapons, as well as methods in “applying aiki techniques with a weapon instead of through a grab” methods. How much Sagawa learned from Takeda, and how much from his own extensive training in other ryu is unknown. The Kodokai is, this informant continued, very secretive, although they allegedly have some number of techniques and other methods using weapons, beyond the use of the weapon as a study of “extension of aiki” from the body through the weapon.

I have left some questions for future clarification — or not, if the factions in questions choose to continue to maintain as private the details regarding their weapons training. At any rate, it is my contention that, although Takeda learned originally through both kata and shiai, he melded together everything he learned and observed, and forged it within the fires of friendly exchanges, fierce matches, and deadly challenges and duels. From this he created his own personal kenjutsu — that he primarily fought single-handed (left or right) rather than two-handed, clearly establishes that his sword was, singularly, his own. I believe that, even more so than his empty-handed techniques, he taught weapons to his Daito-ryu students by demonsration, showing a technique once without explanation, teaching the principles of usage at best, rather than a systematic exposition of sword or staff as it would be done in classical ryu.

I am not asserting that Takeda was free-form or random in his teaching. Even in seminars, he is described as teaching techniques in steps (albeit also indulging in folding and twisting the participants into human origami, surely for his own amusement). He certainly may have taught kata, either pure replication of a ryu’s forms, his adaptation of things learned, and/or things made-up and named on the spot. And it is very likely that he was more systematic in his teaching of his close students. But Takeda’s real genius was his release of his teaching from the bonds of kata. He reworked gokui: rather than the capstone that made the structure of kata and a ryu complete, he taught methods that the assiduous (actually, the few, truly dedicated) could integrate and make, more or less, universally applicable to any configuration of opposing individuals, be they unarmed or armed.

Note: This section was written to lay the groundwork for the next — Ueshiba and weapons. I cannot underscore strongly enough that Ueshiba’s use of weapons was primarily a continuation of Takeda Sokaku’s teaching, and without an exposition of Takeda’s history and methods, - a product of theory and inference though it may be — nothing of note regarding Ueshiba’s weapon skills can really be hazarded. Not only do I, as always, welcome comments on this section, I will happily edit it if presented with evidence in addition or contrary to what I have presented above.

(Footnote 1) In the case of jujutsu, my source for much of this information is a long-ago read article by William Bodiford in a newsletter of the Kashima Shin-ryu.

(Footnote 2) The Japanese were extremely harsh with children in forcing them to be right handed — I’ve seen this even today, not that they are the only culture to do so. It is particularly difficult to do brush calligraphy, top-to-bottom, right-to-left, with the left hand, and children were often physically punished if they attempted to write or eat with the left hand. It is possible that Takeda’s illiteracy, and his utter resistance to schooling may have been associated with the typical way left-handed kids were treated. And, it is also a mark of his individuality and strong-mindedness that he, latter, would choose to use his left hand alone as part of his technique.

(Footnote 3) I believe that it is possible that an obsession with Daito-ryu as a koryu, as a codified system passed down from generation to generation, allegedly unchanged, carries the seeds to its own doom, because it is so at variance to what Takeda did and how he taught.

www.ellisamdur.com

Ellis Amdur — March 6^th, 2006 (add comment)