I have had some students asking me about the other styles of bujutsu O'Sensei studied before meeting Takeda Sokaku.

Here is the list I have so far, if you could lend your thoughts to this and give me anymore names, arts, or corrections, I would be much obliged.

** Indicates ones I am not sure about.

Sumo- Ueshiba Yoroku
Kito-ryu- Kosawa Tokusaburo
Yagyu-ryu- Kanai Masakatsu
Kodokan Jujutsu (Judo)- Takaki Kiyoichi
Shinkage-ryu- ???
Tenjin Shinyo-ryu- Tobari Takisaburo
Hozoin-ryu- Tobari Takisaburo
**Aioi-ryu- ????
**Kukishinden Ryu Happo Hikenjutsu- Kuki Clan

Thanks for your time.

Is there no one out there that can help me?

at www.e-budo.com on page 5, Dan Harden lists some good material. Search on e-budo for more info.

If you search on google (groups) in fa.iaido for posts by Meik Skoss, you'll get info on what Ueshiba **didn't** study...contrary to popular opinion in some cases. There is a lot of controvery about some of the claims made as to what he studied. Even this board (if you do some searches) has some of that info. Some of these conversations are even rather recent.

Your best bet in cases like this is to search the sites...people get tired of repeating the same things. Then if you ask specific questions, you're more likely to get good answers. Not that there's anything wrong with asking.

Ron Tisdale

I am interested in your comments about O-Sensei actually knowing and training with Takamatsu Sensei, and would be keen to track down some hard documentation for what you have just written.

From what little of my own research I have done, I suspect that O-Sensei and Takamatsu Sensei did at least *see * each other, if not a number of times during either the 1920's and 30's, then at least at the Manchurian martial arts demonstration in the late 1930's (I think it was in the year celebrating the 2600th anniversary of Japan), but am yet to come across any documentary evidence to suggest they met, exchanged ideas, or trained with each other, let alone became friends.

I posted on the history forum a question regarding this, outlining a number of points which suggested a connection between the two occurred, but it seems to have been taken down now. Not that there was much response to it anyway...

There was a gentleman on this board who mentioned having some documentation, but when I pressed him for details, it turned out that he didn't have any, so I would like to see if there really is something substantial to this theory.

cheers,

Jason

I have heard conflicting views on whether or not O'Sensei trained in one, some, or none of the arts that are categorized as Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu.

I have 2 students that are a yondan and sandan respectively in Bujinkan and they think that O'Sensei may appear in the emeroiku of Takamatsu for Togakure ryu or possibly in the Kukishinden ryu school of Bujinkan. (Albeit there are 2 separate schools of Kukishinden ryu---Takamatsu is said to have gotten the "good" transmission scrolls, while the Kuki family received honorific scrolls)

I will be going to Japan in the Spring to train at Hombu and I will also visit Noda to train with Hatsumi Masaaki the current Soke of the Bujinkan. I will probably be able to see if O'Sensei actually appears in the books. Or maybe find out ahead of time.

Thanks for the reply.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MikeE:
Lightinrod,

I have heard conflicting views on whether or not O'Sensei trained in one, some, or none of the arts that are categorized as Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu.

I have 2 students that are a yondan and sandan respectively in Bujinkan and they think that O'Sensei may appear in the emeroiku of Takamatsu for Togakure ryu or possibly in the Kukishinden ryu school of Bujinkan. (Albeit there are 2 separate schools of Kukishinden ryu---Takamatsu is said to have gotten the "good" transmission scrolls, while the Kuki family received honorific scrolls)

I will be going to Japan in the Spring to train at Hombu and I will also visit Noda to train with Hatsumi Masaaki the current Soke of the Bujinkan. I will probably be able to see if O'Sensei actually appears in the books. Or maybe find out ahead of time.

Thanks for the reply.

---

I would note that somebody's name appearing in an emeiroku does not necessarily mean that that person actually trained in a particular ryu. For example, it was not uncommon to have famous/important visitors sign the emeiroku as a kind of "autograph", or momento of their visit. Another example, M. Ueshiba made blood oath (keppan) with Kashima Shinto ryu and appears in their records, but never actually trained there, instead having his students (and his son) study the ryu.

Best,

Chris

Chris, is there any other way to authenticate or are we barking up a tree that can't be proven it exists?

Many thanks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MikeE:
So....

Chris, is there any other way to authenticate or are we barking up a tree that can't be proven it exists?

Many thanks.

---

I suppose that the best way would be to talk to somebody who was actually there - but there aren't to many of those around anymore .

Best,

Chris

[ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: Brian S. Wagner ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan:

Cause that is what he learned and what you do in Aikido.[ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: Dan ]

---

...Talk about revisionist...?

quote:

---

That’s it and that’s all. Hats off to his genius.

---

Abe Sensei once told me that when it comes to O-Sensei, when someone doesn't really know, we get a statement like this.

quote:

---

P.S. I'll even explore another alternative. He somehow managed to train in all these other arts we train half a life time to learn. He summed it all up after what must have been years of training in secret-looked at what Takeda was capable of and thought everything else paled in comparison and STILL decided to use nothing else but Daito ryu for his art.

---

...Now, I admit that I do not know you, and given that, I am open to "alternative" explanations of your words, and the possibility that I missed your true intentions. However, on the surface, this statement seems more than just a bit self-serving... at best.

Just as an afterthought, I am wondering if you could refresh the board as to your own aikido lineage. I do believe that it will enable those of us on the board, well, me at least, to more easily balance your thought provoking posts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan:
I don’t enjoy engaging in discourse with anonymous people.

---

To start off - I am very open to your ideas.

If you would like, you can read my profile. I am far from anonymous, as it contains the names of my teachers, and links to my website which would include all pertinent information about me.

quote:

---

And if you are going to debate points on historical connections -or lack thereof- with someone, it might be wiser to offer substantive argument, instead of debating the person.

---

I guess, since you are making the rules...
With all due respect however, I do not find statements like "This is the way it is (like it or not) and that is that." to be an example of a "substantive" argument. I am not looking to debate you, or your idea, simply clarify for myself what it is you are trying to say. At that point I can make a fair estimate of the value of your statement. So far, I have been unable to.

quote:

---

I Suppose we could "change" the topic and discuss that.

---

I do believe that my post was requesting information from you about your background so that I, or anyone else on the board for that matter, could have a better feel for that which encourages your line of thought. Certainly, that is not an attack, and did not merit one in your response.

I suppose that since you are defining the rules - might a simple request of, "Please answer a direct question with a direct answer" be one of the rules? If so, then again I ask the question, “What is your aikido lineage?”

quote:

---

We could argue technical merits of the two arts based on personal experience-but this isn't about that is it?

---

Well, perhaps there is merit in "arguing" based upon the written "assumptions" of others, calling that reference material evidence, or upon our own personal experiences. I do believe that both have particular value, depending on what end-result you are trying to provide a proof for. This happens to be one of the weak points of "critical" thinking, but that certainly is another thread (and board) entirely.

quote:

---

It's about where it comes from.

---

I agree with your statement. However, you used the expression "points of historical connection" When I ask you about the specifics of yours, you quote "a tremendous body of work written on all aspects of life; Budo, Boxing, Football, Gardening, Gymnastics, Architectural design etc. that has been penned by non-participants."

I would put forth that one could learn a lot from a spending a week or so reading a book on spirituality, per se, certainly a lot more writing such a book. However, one could also learn quite a bit, more in fact, by spending the same amount of time with a spiritual person. I don't find that your example relates to my request in the least. Even if you do, you could still provide the information, as a mere courtesy.

quote:

---

Try to stay on point.

---

I addressed your statement directly by asking you to provide some information. If you are inferring that I am changing the topic, you might care to notice that the thread was originally about "Arts O-Sensei studied besides DR." I do believe that your post may be one of those which diverted the thread. I was merely following your line of "thinking."

In any case, I do not find THIS argument:

quote:

---

Why if the man studied all this material, learned all this deep and life changing conglomerate of wisdom and insight, fathomed the depths of ethereal secrets to Japanese Budo, learned the principles of all these jujutsu and Koryu weapons arts-why is there no verifiable record of this vast body of work by such a charismatic man?
Where are the stories?
The interesting tales of Yore by all the masters he trained under? Surely if not him, than at least the masters themselves would want acknowledgment of their good services? Not the least of which would be their great contribution to the technical syllabus of one of the most popular arts known.
Where are the years of sweat and learning as a newbie? Or at the very least-where are these techniques. Why aren't they in Aikido?
Why (you may ask yourself on that day in the future)?
They don’t exist!

---

...To have any weight. You can't use the fact that "no one was in the forest when the tree fell" as proof that "it made no noise." I am an open person. I personally have information from sources that, in fact, take some very widely known, "indisputable" ideas about Aikido & O-Sensei, ...etc., that directly challenge what 99.9 % of the martial arts community think they know. We are talking J. Edgar Hoover in a Dress kind of stuff - only meaning that it will alter the perceptions of the art of aikido. Certainly not that O-Sensei wore a dress - for those of you who had that flash

My point in posting, similar to yours, is that much of what is believed can, in fact, be incorrect. However, what I know to be incorrect I know because I have what I consider “proof.” In the case of the few "revisionist" hypotheses that you put here for the board to consider, you offer "lack of proof" as proof, "along with assertions that those who write about a subject know more about as, or at least as much about it than those who participate in it – an assertion I find to be believable if one were reading

quote:

---

…various tales written in countless Aikido books by ‘smitten” disciples and near–do-wells or other books with borrowed poorly researched information.

---

I would like to use your words, in closing,

quote:

---

"...Realize that we don't know for sure...much of anything."

---

In case you happen to be correct There, I say again, "I am very open to your ideas" should they be based upon concrete evidence you might choose to forward to the board for consideration.

Of course, as I have chosen, so too may you choose to decide where and when to present such evidence. If you care to reveal it at a later date - I would recommend holding onto the ideas based upon such evidence rather than making bold statements that could be misconstrued to be disrespectful, based upon your own unsubstantiated opinions, and/or show a major lack of critical knowledge of at least one, if not both of the arts you seem to be comparing.

quote:

---

“If you can’t argue the merits of a case, argue law If you can’t argue law, argue merits Failing that; badger the witness ”
anonymous

---

Oh - I do notice that this gentleman, too, keeps his lineage from us. Do you happen to know him?

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Misogi_No_Gyo ]

It gets even better after the person dies. The longer the guy's been dead, the better the stories. The longer Ueshiba has been dead, the more martial arts he seems to have mastered.

Whatever Ueshiba learned over the years, anyone who has seen/experienced both aikido and Daito-ryu will tell you that aikido is an adaptation of Daito-ryu. Ueshiba took what he learned from Takeda, and adapted it to develop another system that met his particular philosophical needs. It looks as though he withheld from his teachings some of the stuff he had learned from Takeda, though, because, as Dan pointed out, aikido doesn't have the aiki as recognized in Daito-ryu.

Ueshiba's students saw and felt their teacher doing things that they couldn't duplicate or replicate, and, scratching their heads over the mystery, must have assumed that Ueshiba was holding out on them. What, they didn't know. Others do know.

While it's nice to defend one's art, its founder and its origins, there's no merit to doing so blindly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cady Goldfield:
Ueshiba seems to be one of those guys who attracted a lot of disciples, who in turn created a vast mythology around him ...and the awed disciples do the PR for him.

---

I, as you and some others, think that some of the myth is false - VERY FALSE. However, my thinking comes from a definition of "Myth"

MYTH
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY

2 : popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society.

3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence

If we combine elements from this definition with the basic knowledge that those who perpetuate myths do so for one simple reason - they themselves do not know the truth. Now, I also am not unfamiliar with the second reason to perpetuate a myth - that being it somehow enhances one's own reputation, or claim to fame. I do believe that this happened quite a bit with the original deshi, but in comparison to the sheer number of aikidoka who simply repeat misinformation given to them by some person, somewhere, at some point in time, for me grants license to stake the first reason as best for the reason we have so many myths about O-Sensei... Or even Takeda Sokaku, perhaps.

quote:

---

The longer Ueshiba has been dead, the more martial arts he seems to have mastered.

---

Now I don't happen to have a list of the arts he didn't master * see my post above about forests, falling trees and noises* and I don't put much, check that, any stock in any list that one purports to actually have. However, if we break down your statement, for a moment, I think there is an important distinction to note, that being:

How many arts do people (today) claim O-Sensei has mastered -VS- how many arts did O-Sensei himself claim to have mastered?

Any takers on that? Perhaps our wonderful benefactor, Stanley Pranin would care to take help us out. I think many would agree that the latter list would be much shorter.

I propose that instead of assassinating the man for what others are saying/have said about him, that we deal with what claims he himself has made,directly to verifiable sources, and go from there. Now, I will say that I have no idea or presupposition about anything that may turn up. I, myself, happen to be setting off on a research project dealing with this and other points of interest, that I hope to publish in a public forum, of some type, at some point in the distant (read years) future.

Continued in next Post...

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Misogi_No_Gyo ]

You can read the rest of Stanley's response in the interview itself:
http://www.aikiweb.com/interviews/pranin0800.html

-- Jun