Aikido Journal

Joined: 14 Dec 2005 Posts: 8 Location: Toronto

here is an edited version of a question that I sent Stanley Pranin.... any thoughts on the below?

I recently read your article, "Is O'Sensei really the father of modern aikido" and I found it absolutely fascinating. I have always been a great admirer of Saito Sensei's ability, however his personal style never was my "cup of tea", that is until I was given the Lost Saito Seminar DVD by my senior Denis Diaz. I was blown away at Saito's ability to not only execute static kata practice with such power (as I had seen before) but also his Ki No Nagare which I had seen very little of up to that time. Saito Sensei was able to show both sides of the "aikido coin" in his practice that it is possible to be extremely strong and stable while at the same time able to execute the free flowing type of throwing that is more associated with Hombu practice.

Now, getting to my question......Saito Sensei and your publication have stressed that Iwama practice preserves the founder's Aikido. What he taught at Hombu, infrequently as it seems, was not necessarily the true art of the founder. His teachings there focused more on free flowing large movements as well as lectures on aikido and spirituality. When he returned to Iwama his teachings were very different, for example there was more of a focus on weapons training. There has been insinuations in past interviews that the Iwama group perceived the Hombu group as less effective and too soft.

Now getting to my question (I know this is taking a while), there is a Toronto instructor who was a Soto Deshi at Hombu at the same time as Terry Dobson, Robert Nadeau and other foreign Deshi of the time. His name is Henry Kono and he is a wealth of knowledge, mostly because he was a Japanese Canadian who could speak Japanese, understood the hierarchy rules, but did not follow them. In essence if he did not understand something, he was known (to the chagrin of his Japanese seniors) to walk right up to O'Sensei and simply say that he did not understand. In turn O'Sensei was happy to explain or show Henry personally. It got to the point that Henry would take Ukemi for O'Sensei and occasionally travel with him and act as an English translator (very occasionally).

Henry has told me that at one time some of the Deshi, including himself, were practicing some of the older Aiki Budo type of techniques and when O'Sensei saw this he exploded on them and told them not to do those techniques. At a later date, when Henry asked O'Sensei about this, he was said to state quite strongly that those techniques should not be practiced any more, that it was no longer his aikido and that he had moved on away from that "style". In essence he had evolved.

Is it possible that O'Sensei wanted Aikido in Hombu to be different than Iwama? That he wanted the Hombu style to have a greater emphasis on Ki No Nagare, have larger movements and not have weapons training? I greatly admire Yamaguchi and Osawa Sensei's aikido and they were very prominent student's of the founder, their Aikido is vastly different from Saito's. Tohei, who seems so relaxed in all his video clips looks to be the antithesis of Saito Sensei (I know that's only demonstrational Aikido) but he was so effective that he took on challenges for the Aikikai and was successful.

The impression that I received from Henry Kono was that O'Sensei wasn't indifferent to the practice at Hombu, in fact it was quite the opposite. He was adamant that Aikido be practiced a certain way and that was very different from the practice we see in Iwama. Is it possible that this was deliberate or was he just supporting the teachings of his son and the Aikikai teaching group? This question has been nagging me for a very long time

_________________
Johnny
www.eyhkc.com

Joined: 15 Sep 2003 Posts: 757 Location: Malibu,CA.USA

Hey Johnny good questions but I think you phrased it a bit wrong in the header.

Iwama VS Hombu implies they're in competition with each other when in fact they coexist peacefully as two seperate styles. For example Shoji Nishio ( My "Style") "left" Hombu to follow his own path with O' Sensei's blessing and they remained close until O'Sensei's passing, My understanding of Aikido is that it has several flavors, and their roots and essence remain unchanged.

I believed O'Sensei answered your question...

"Even though our path is completely different from the warrior arts of the past, it is not necessary to abandon totally the old ways. Absorb venerable traditions into this new Art by clothing them into fresh garments, and build on classic styles to create better forms."

William Hazen

Joined: 14 Dec 2005 Posts: 8 Location: Toronto

Thanks for pointing that out William, I did not want to imply competition only to point out the differences. Not that one is better than the other. Ooopps.

Joined: 09 Apr 2001 Posts: 500 Location: New York

.....in my limited experience, Kyoto practice is noticably different from both Iwama and Hombu, as is Shingu practice.

Adaptablility to local conditions and the predispositions of the local practitioners can be a virtue.

We now return yuo to our regularly scheduled discussion: Nature versus Nurture, with Plato, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Jared Diamond, Stephen Jay Gould, and Richard Dawkins.

Joined: 15 Sep 2003 Posts: 757 Location: Malibu,CA.USA

kokumo wrote:

.....in my limited experience, Kyoto practice is noticably different from both Iwama and Hombu, as is Shingu practice.

Adaptablility to local conditions and the predispositions of the local practitioners can be a virtue.

We now return yuo to our regularly scheduled discussion: Nature versus Nurture, with Plato, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Jared Diamond, Stephen Jay Gould, and Richard Dawkins.

Indeed... Adaptability is always a virtue until it is not. Very Happy

William Hazen

Joined: 14 Dec 2005 Posts: 8 Location: Toronto

does anyone think that O'Sensei deliberately wanted Hombu practice to be uniquely different from Iwama? I think that it is an interesting concept that there were 2 sides of the Aikido coin represented in Hombu and Iwama.

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:56 pm

kokumo wrote:

...We now return yuo to our regularly scheduled discussion: Nature versus Nurture, with Plato, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Jared Diamond, Stephen Jay Gould, and Richard Dawkins.

You think these guys are heavy-hitters? In the famous last words of Rene Descarte (right before he vanished), "I think not!"

--Robert Goldsworthy

Joined: 06 Apr 2000 Posts: 220 Location: PDX, USA

I think that it is very interesting that, if your example conveys the correct impression, Ueshiba sensei discouraged later students at the honbu dojo from learning as he himself had learned.

There would be many implications, providing it is true, up to and including a wholly different set of goals and outcomes for those practicing the art under this "new regime".

Did Ueshiba himself plant the seeds for later schism in the aikido world and, if so, why and to what end? Why abandon a proven method of martial training that was responsible for his own level of expertise and had produced significant results in earlier students such as Inoue s Hisa s. Tomiki s. Mochizuki s. Shirata s. Shioda s. Saito s. and others?

Joined: 09 Apr 2001 Posts: 500 Location: New York

rgoldswo wrote:

kokumo wrote:

...We now return yuo to our regularly scheduled discussion: Nature versus Nurture, with Plato, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Jared Diamond, Stephen Jay Gould, and Richard Dawkins.

You think these guys are heavy-hitters? In the famous last words of Rene Descarte (right before he vanished), "I think not!"

--Robert Goldsworthy

‘Tu le connais, lecteur, ce monstre délicat,/ — Hypocrite lecteur, — mon semblable, — mon frère!’

Joined: 22 Jul 2001 Posts: 480 Location: New Zealand

Despite what anyone says, even O Sensei, it is natual instinct, common-sense, to go back to the past to see how they - the greats - got to where they were. And, it is common sense for the seeker to want to train 'that' way ... if they can discern it.

Joined: 04 Oct 2004 Posts: 395 Location: Florida

IMHO, you cannot ignore the past. You may wish to emulate it, or you may wish to avoid repeating it. Either way, you have been influenced by it, and it is part of your path.

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:25 am

kokumo wrote:

‘Tu le connais, lecteur, ce monstre délicat,/ — Hypocrite lecteur, — mon semblable, — mon frère!’

Umbrage? Me take Umbrage? This is the kind of errant pedantry by which I will not up with put!

--Robert Goldsworthy

Joined: 26 Jan 2001 Posts: 29 Location: Orlando, FL (USA)

rupert wrote:

Despite what anyone says, even O Sensei, it is natual instinct, common-sense, to go back to the past to see how they - the greats - got to where they were. And, it is common sense for the seeker to want to train 'that' way ... if they can discern it.

This is certainly a truth, Rupert. However, is it not also very common for those who have walked the path to minimize the value of their foundation, believing that they are (in the later stages) training the "true principles" of their discipline?

We can subjectively view their development and ask the question, "how could they turn their back on what developed their skills at an early stage." But it is, IMHO, also human nature for us not to dwell on what we have attained, and to believe that we have "evolved" from where we began.

Looking at it further, we can possibly even characterize this debate by saying that most of us fall on one side or the other when it comes to the age-old debate of, "is it a pre-requisite to experience the early training of the Founder in order to see, and ultimately be able to attain, what he later developed into?"

Dan

Joined: 26 Mar 2004 Posts: 3

Walker wrote:

snip...
Did Ueshiba himself plant the seeds for later schism in the aikido world and, if so, why and to what end? Why abandon a proven method of martial training that was responsible for his own level of expertise and had produced significant results in earlier students such as Inoue s Hisa s. Tomiki s. Mochizuki s. Shirata s. Shioda s. Saito s. and others?

Hi Walter,

On contrary. According to a Shinto priest who does not practise aikido and who claims to be spiritually connected to the "kami" (O Sensei included), O Sensei intended to leave the 3 phases of his instructions intact for the posterity of aikido and to preserve the essence of his teachings:

1. His blessing and support to Gozo Shioda to start Yoshinkan dojo (Gozo Shioda commenced training with O Sensei in the 1930's)
2. His instructions at Iwama (1940's to 1960's)
3. His spiritual teachings at Hombu dojo (in the 50's & 60's)

O Sensei had a foresight that his aikido would spread far and wide from Hombu dojo (Tokyo) but the essence of aikido as a Budo would be lost as time went by. Having both the Yoshinkan and Iwama systems, the essence will always be preserved as future practitioners/students will have ready references from these two traditional systems.

FYI, the Shinto priest is H Kondo and he presently resides in KL, Malaysia.

IMO, it is O Sensei's application of the Shu-Ha-Ri concept of transmission of knowledge and skill.

FWIW.

Joined: 09 Jul 2002 Posts: 93 Location: Rua Jussara, 145

My Sensei taught me that O sensei started practicing a martial art, but ended up creating a Martial Way, and called it Aikido.
According to his oppinion, Aikido without spiritualitty is just a derivative art of Daito Ryu, maybe less effective once many simplifications were introduced.
If he is correct, it is not a matter about if O Sensei let 3 ways to practice to posterity, but that some of his students evoluted to a more higher spiritual side, and other remained in its inicial view about the practice.

Gozo Shioda the top master of Yoshinkan, did not believed in the Kamis, for example and was a fantastic martial artist.

Ale