Transmission, Inheritance, Emulationby Peter Goldsbury
|
Peter Goldsbury (b. 28 April 1944). Aikido 6th danAikikai, Professor
at Hiroshima University, teaching philosophy and comparative cul- ture. B. in UK. Began aikido as a student and practiced at various dojo. Became a student ofMitsunari Kauai at the New England Aiki- kai in 1973. After moving back to the UK in 1975, trained in the R)ti- shinkan Dojo under Minoru Kanetsuka. Also trained with K Chiba on his frequent visits to the UK. Moved to Hiroshima, Japan, in 19S0 and continued training with the resident Shihan, Mazakazu Kitahira, ~th dan Also Trained regularly with Seigo Yamaguchi, Hiroshi Tada, Sa- dareru Arikawa and Masatake Fujita, both in Hiroshima and at the Aikikai Hombu. Was elected Chairman of the IAF in 199S. With two German colleagues, opened a small dojo in Higashi-Hiroshima City in 2001. Instructed atAiki Expo 2002 in Las Vegas, Nevada. |
This column is an extended discussion 0f some recent topics already
touched upon in the AikiWeb discussion forums and in private mail.
The various topics are closely connected and treatment of one influ-
ences the perception and treatment of others. The column is very much
work in progress and is not intended as a full-blown academic paper.
The topics discussed are related to the various issues involved in the
transmission of theoretical and practical knowledge in a non-
competitive martial art like aikido, especially the transmission of
knowledge across cultures. All these issues are fundamental to how we
conceive the form and content of the aikido training we undergo at the
hands of our teachers and can be presented as propositions, subsumed
under the three headings in the title.
touched upon in the AikiWeb discussion forums and in private mail.
The various topics are closely connected and treatment of one influ-
ences the perception and treatment of others. The column is very much
work in progress and is not intended as a full-blown academic paper.
The topics discussed are related to the various issues involved in the
transmission of theoretical and practical knowledge in a non-
competitive martial art like aikido, especially the transmission of
knowledge across cultures. All these issues are fundamental to how we
conceive the form and content of the aikido training we undergo at the
hands of our teachers and can be presented as propositions, subsumed
under the three headings in the title.
Transmission
(a) Morihei Ueshiba made no attempt to 'teach'
the knowledge and skills he possessed to his
deshi.
(b) The latter all gained profound knowledge and
skills during their time as deshi, but it is by no
means clear that they gained all the knowl-
edge or that all gained the same knowledge.
(c) Morihei Ueshiba appears to have made no
specific attempt to check whether his deshi
had understood what they had learned from
him.
(a) Morihei Ueshiba made no attempt to 'teach'
the knowledge and skills he possessed to his
deshi.
(b) The latter all gained profound knowledge and
skills during their time as deshi, but it is by no
means clear that they gained all the knowl-
edge or that all gained the same knowledge.
(c) Morihei Ueshiba appears to have made no
specific attempt to check whether his deshi
had understood what they had learned from
him.
Inheritance
(d) On the other hand, all the evidence indicates
that Morihei Ueshiba worried very? much
about passing on the art to future generations
and finally designated his son Kisshomaru
Ueshiba as heir and inheritor of the art.
(e) Kisshomaru Ueshiba seems to have changed
the inheritance he received quite radically,
again, with no clear reaction from his father,
such that it has been stated that the aikido
taught by him and by his successors nowadays
is no longer Morihei Ueshiba's aikido.
(d) On the other hand, all the evidence indicates
that Morihei Ueshiba worried very? much
about passing on the art to future generations
and finally designated his son Kisshomaru
Ueshiba as heir and inheritor of the art.
(e) Kisshomaru Ueshiba seems to have changed
the inheritance he received quite radically,
again, with no clear reaction from his father,
such that it has been stated that the aikido
taught by him and by his successors nowadays
is no longer Morihei Ueshiba's aikido.
Inheritance
(d) On the other hand, al! the evidence indicates
that Morihei Ueshiba worried very much
about passing on the art to future generations
and finally designated his son Kisshomaru
Ueshiba as heir and inheritor of the art
(e) Kisshomaru Ueshiba seems to have changed
the inheritance he receved quite radically,
again. With no clear reaction from his father,
such that it has been stated that the aikido
taught by him and by his successors nowadays
is no longer Morihei Ueshiba's aikido
Emulation
(f) Just as the heirs of Morihei Ueshiba have
passed on their knowledge and skill to their
deshi. so also have the deshi of Morihei Ue-
shiba passed on their knowledge and skill to
their own deshi. but with very varying degress
of success, such that the knowledge and skills
of present and future generations are becom-
ing and will become increasingly varied in
quality, in proportion as they become more
distant from the source.
(d) On the other hand, al! the evidence indicates
that Morihei Ueshiba worried very much
about passing on the art to future generations
and finally designated his son Kisshomaru
Ueshiba as heir and inheritor of the art
(e) Kisshomaru Ueshiba seems to have changed
the inheritance he receved quite radically,
again. With no clear reaction from his father,
such that it has been stated that the aikido
taught by him and by his successors nowadays
is no longer Morihei Ueshiba's aikido
Emulation
(f) Just as the heirs of Morihei Ueshiba have
passed on their knowledge and skill to their
deshi. so also have the deshi of Morihei Ue-
shiba passed on their knowledge and skill to
their own deshi. but with very varying degress
of success, such that the knowledge and skills
of present and future generations are becom-
ing and will become increasingly varied in
quality, in proportion as they become more
distant from the source.
(g) The fact that many of these deshi the outside
Japan and that aikido has become a Japanese
art practiced more outside Japan than in
Japan has profoundly affected and is pro-
foundly affecting its essential character
Over the next few columns I will examine each of these three general
categories in turn. for, as I suggested above. I believe that they are
fundamental to our core perceptions of the art as it is practiced both
here in Japan and abroad. However. I also believe that certain crucial
assumptions are made, even in the way that the categories are set up.
These assumptions, which are also very much controversial issues, are
based on a particular paradigm (for want of a better term). This para-
digm can also be expressed in a number of propositions:
(1) Aikido is a budo that can be fully taught and
folly learned (in the sense that it is possible
for the deshi to acquire all of the master's
skills).
(2) Aikido is a budo that has to be taught and
learned by means of being systematized into
teaching and learning strategies
(3) Whereas the teacher is crucially important in
this process, it is the mastery of 'he teaching
and learning strategies on the part of the
student that will ultimately determine whether
the knowledge and skills can be or hate been
or are being acquired.
(4) Thus, there is an important element of ac-
countability and independent assessment of
the internal efficiency of the art. but this is
based on some vague standard of what the art
should 'do' in a 'real'situation.
(5) There is also a 'moral' aspect to the art. in the
sense that (It the art should bring about a
change in any indidual who practices the
art, and (2) this change should be for the
better. hawever this is conceited.
(Continued on page 2)
One can argue that this is a 'western' paradigm, of limited relevance to
a Japanese martial art that is strongly vertically-structured and teacher-
based. Nevertheless, it is an undisputed fact that aikido spread rapidly
overseas with the Founder's blessing (as a 'Golden Bridge', in the
Founder's words—uttered m Hawaii) and it can also be argued that the
art has a stronger base, in terms of knowledge and numbers, outside
Japan than m this country. So the 'western' paradigm cannot be dis-
missed simply on the grounds that it is western. This paradigm, and the
cultural issues surrounding it. will be touched upon frequently during
the discussion of the propositions listed above. I myself believe that
this is not entirely a western paradigm, but also believe that there are
important cultural differences in how particular items in this paradigm
are interpreted, even perceived, and that is of critical relevance to
aikido.
Before we can begin this discussion, however, one more crucial ele-
ment needs to be added to the mis. The art of aikido is based on the
life of one individual and it is also a controversial issue to distinguish
clearly the life he led & the training he underwent from the art he
created & the traditions relating to the art that have grown up as a
result. The life of Morihei Ueshiba and the circumstances in which he
created aikido follow a recognizable pattern and one that cannot easily
be assigned as specific to any particular national culture. The pattern is
sketched m the following paragraph and has several stages, though
sometimes these cannot easily be distinguished. The stages can also be
expressed as propositions:
(1) A charismatic individual undergoes a physical
and spirirual Transformation as a result of
rigorous personal Training. The individual is
in a real sense a 'loner': he marries and pro-
duces offspring, but this does not affect his
central aim of training as an individual.
(2) The individual attracts disciples, who desire to
obtain what he possesses. The disciples also
undergo rigorous Training, which is suppos-
edly a replication ofsome, but not all of the
Training which the individual himselfunder-
wenr. Some disciples supplemenr this by their
own additional training regimes outside the
dojo.
(3) However, the training is undergone as a group
and the group achieves a close internal cohe-
sion, based on the fact that alt the members
are 'uchi-deshi', or live-in students, of the
charismatic individual
(4) An organization evolves, which is more than
the sum total of the individuals who comprise
it.
The personal training of the individual be-
a Japanese martial art that is strongly vertically-structured and teacher-
based. Nevertheless, it is an undisputed fact that aikido spread rapidly
overseas with the Founder's blessing (as a 'Golden Bridge', in the
Founder's words—uttered m Hawaii) and it can also be argued that the
art has a stronger base, in terms of knowledge and numbers, outside
Japan than m this country. So the 'western' paradigm cannot be dis-
missed simply on the grounds that it is western. This paradigm, and the
cultural issues surrounding it. will be touched upon frequently during
the discussion of the propositions listed above. I myself believe that
this is not entirely a western paradigm, but also believe that there are
important cultural differences in how particular items in this paradigm
are interpreted, even perceived, and that is of critical relevance to
aikido.
Before we can begin this discussion, however, one more crucial ele-
ment needs to be added to the mis. The art of aikido is based on the
life of one individual and it is also a controversial issue to distinguish
clearly the life he led & the training he underwent from the art he
created & the traditions relating to the art that have grown up as a
result. The life of Morihei Ueshiba and the circumstances in which he
created aikido follow a recognizable pattern and one that cannot easily
be assigned as specific to any particular national culture. The pattern is
sketched m the following paragraph and has several stages, though
sometimes these cannot easily be distinguished. The stages can also be
expressed as propositions:
(1) A charismatic individual undergoes a physical
and spirirual Transformation as a result of
rigorous personal Training. The individual is
in a real sense a 'loner': he marries and pro-
duces offspring, but this does not affect his
central aim of training as an individual.
(2) The individual attracts disciples, who desire to
obtain what he possesses. The disciples also
undergo rigorous Training, which is suppos-
edly a replication ofsome, but not all of the
Training which the individual himselfunder-
wenr. Some disciples supplemenr this by their
own additional training regimes outside the
dojo.
(3) However, the training is undergone as a group
and the group achieves a close internal cohe-
sion, based on the fact that alt the members
are 'uchi-deshi', or live-in students, of the
charismatic individual
(4) An organization evolves, which is more than
the sum total of the individuals who comprise
it.
The personal training of the individual be-
comes an 'art', which is given several names,
but which also becomes distinct from ihe sum
total of the knowledge of the charismatic
individual who created it.
(<5) Since the art was created and has flourished
in the Founder's lifetime and does not end
with his death, it thus acquires a life of its own
and is also used as a benchmark of authentic-
ity,
(7) Since the charismatic individual now called
the Founder or some other appropriate name,
is mortal he 'entrusts'the 'art'to his disci-
ples, but with the core organization and train-
ing placed in the hands of his son, who is also
a first-generation deshi
(8) At this point the other deshi have a choice to
make: to accept the new position of the son, or
to go their own way and create other training
regimes, organizations, or arts, also based on
the original.
(9) Thus in a real sense there is a 'passing on': a
bequeathing and an inheritance, a tradition is
thus created in each case, and also respective
histories of the traditions thus created: ways
of interpreting the activities of the Founder
and his place within the specific tradition.
Given the works of C G Jung and Joseph Campbell, some of the earlier
stages of this partem are easily recognizable as a hero's journey. How-
ever—and this is something that neither Jung nor Campbell discussed
very much, the ways m which the hero's journey is reproduced, reen-
acted and valued in each culture are severely culture-based and are
thus subject to the values of the particular culture. (I think that Jung
and Campbell assumed that each culture would interpret the hero's
exploits in a particular, i.e., 'western' way) So, even though I have
stated above that this partem cannot easily be assigned to one national
culture, it will not do for westerners to make judgments on uniquely
Japanese aspects of Morihei Ueshiba's evolution as a budo 'hero',
simply because his life follows the usual partem, sketched above.
I should add by way of a conclusion that these columns are the residt
of almost three decades spent in Japan, becoming part of the culture
from the 'inside', so to speak, in the general context of (1) teaching &
researching at a large university, (5) practicing aikido under a large
number of teachers (but always with one particular teacher at the core),
and (3) teaching comparative culture and mtercultural negotiation to
manure Japanese students in one of the university's graduate schools. I
have put them m the above order because I regard my time at Hi-
roshima University as the locus for the fundamental process of leara-
t Continued on page 3)
but which also becomes distinct from ihe sum
total of the knowledge of the charismatic
individual who created it.
(<5) Since the art was created and has flourished
in the Founder's lifetime and does not end
with his death, it thus acquires a life of its own
and is also used as a benchmark of authentic-
ity,
(7) Since the charismatic individual now called
the Founder or some other appropriate name,
is mortal he 'entrusts'the 'art'to his disci-
ples, but with the core organization and train-
ing placed in the hands of his son, who is also
a first-generation deshi
(8) At this point the other deshi have a choice to
make: to accept the new position of the son, or
to go their own way and create other training
regimes, organizations, or arts, also based on
the original.
(9) Thus in a real sense there is a 'passing on': a
bequeathing and an inheritance, a tradition is
thus created in each case, and also respective
histories of the traditions thus created: ways
of interpreting the activities of the Founder
and his place within the specific tradition.
Given the works of C G Jung and Joseph Campbell, some of the earlier
stages of this partem are easily recognizable as a hero's journey. How-
ever—and this is something that neither Jung nor Campbell discussed
very much, the ways m which the hero's journey is reproduced, reen-
acted and valued in each culture are severely culture-based and are
thus subject to the values of the particular culture. (I think that Jung
and Campbell assumed that each culture would interpret the hero's
exploits in a particular, i.e., 'western' way) So, even though I have
stated above that this partem cannot easily be assigned to one national
culture, it will not do for westerners to make judgments on uniquely
Japanese aspects of Morihei Ueshiba's evolution as a budo 'hero',
simply because his life follows the usual partem, sketched above.
I should add by way of a conclusion that these columns are the residt
of almost three decades spent in Japan, becoming part of the culture
from the 'inside', so to speak, in the general context of (1) teaching &
researching at a large university, (5) practicing aikido under a large
number of teachers (but always with one particular teacher at the core),
and (3) teaching comparative culture and mtercultural negotiation to
manure Japanese students in one of the university's graduate schools. I
have put them m the above order because I regard my time at Hi-
roshima University as the locus for the fundamental process of leara-
t Continued on page 3)
ing how to become part of the culture in general. The dojo is a work-
ing immature of this culture and in the dojo some aspects of the culture
are present to a heightened degree and others are absent. Finally, the
teaching of comparative ■culture' to mature 'natives' has yielded some
sensitivity to the problems involved m using the term itself So I have
first-hand expenence of being exposed m its birthplace to what is
thought to be a 'global' or 'international', but Japanese, martial art and
also have first-hand expenence of trying to understand the art that I am
practicing within the parameters of its 'host' culture.
What I am using, in effect, is the Argument from Authority and we all
know that this is the very weakest form of argument Accordingly. I
expect these arguments to be examined for what they are and not be-
cause it is I who am using them. However, those who do challenge
these arguments should also be aware of the ways m which the cultural
standpoint the)* take can affect how they actually frame both the argu-
ment and the challenges. For those with an mterest m comparative
culture, I have been using m my classes the two works of Geert
Hofstede: Culture's Consequences and Cultures and Organizations:
Software of The Mind. Hofstede is Dutch and his work is not without
problems. However, given adequate awareness of these problems, his
work is a reasonably reliable peg on which to hang the general treat-
ment of comparative culture
So, over the next few columns I will examine each of the general
categones of transmission, inheritance and emulation, listed earlier,
and then follow this up with further discussion of the teaching & learn-
ing paradigm and also the 'hero' biography of Morihei Ueshiba. The
general conclusions offered will be pretty bleak.
ing immature of this culture and in the dojo some aspects of the culture
are present to a heightened degree and others are absent. Finally, the
teaching of comparative ■culture' to mature 'natives' has yielded some
sensitivity to the problems involved m using the term itself So I have
first-hand expenence of being exposed m its birthplace to what is
thought to be a 'global' or 'international', but Japanese, martial art and
also have first-hand expenence of trying to understand the art that I am
practicing within the parameters of its 'host' culture.
What I am using, in effect, is the Argument from Authority and we all
know that this is the very weakest form of argument Accordingly. I
expect these arguments to be examined for what they are and not be-
cause it is I who am using them. However, those who do challenge
these arguments should also be aware of the ways m which the cultural
standpoint the)* take can affect how they actually frame both the argu-
ment and the challenges. For those with an mterest m comparative
culture, I have been using m my classes the two works of Geert
Hofstede: Culture's Consequences and Cultures and Organizations:
Software of The Mind. Hofstede is Dutch and his work is not without
problems. However, given adequate awareness of these problems, his
work is a reasonably reliable peg on which to hang the general treat-
ment of comparative culture
So, over the next few columns I will examine each of the general
categones of transmission, inheritance and emulation, listed earlier,
and then follow this up with further discussion of the teaching & learn-
ing paradigm and also the 'hero' biography of Morihei Ueshiba. The
general conclusions offered will be pretty bleak.
| pgoldsbury_2007_03.pdf |
|
|
|
In the next few columns of this series, I plan to examine in more detail
the activities of teaching, learning and 'stealing*, especially as these
applied to Morihei Ueshiba and his immediate disciples, and also the
crucial relationship between these activities and their own (and our
own) personal training regimes.
As they progress with their training, aikidoists tend to encounter vari-
ous problems, when they are led to question the validity of what they
are doing. They practice under the supervision of a 'Sensei', who has
also practiced, and perhaps received his license to teach, from another
'Sensei' and the partem then is to trace the lineage and also compe-
tence as an aikidoist and an aikido teacher, right back to 0 Sensei. who
is generally considered to be the Source (apologies to the Wachowski
brothers), hence the connotation of the Japanese term Sensei.
The problems arise when these aikidoists encounter exponents of other
martial arts, who tell aikidoists that they are lacking m their technique
and training, and also when the)* encounter other exponents of aikido
who are from a different lineage to their own. How is it possible that
aikido can be lacking in such essential skills, given that the Foimder
was the Source, and how is it possible that there can be so many differ-
ent 'schools' of aikido. when there is only one Founder/Source? The
problems have led to much discussion, especially on dedicated web-
sites like AikiWeb. and have also led dedicated aikidoists to question
severely their own training history. There is no point m going into
denial here. The problems exist and the most honest approach is to
admit this and then try to find a way to resolve the dilemma m the best
traditions of BUN BU: by study and training.
One way out of the dilemma is to argue that aikido has changed over
the generations and that m order to practice 'real' aikido. one has to
follow m Neo's footsteps and go back to the Source and actually study
how Morihei Ueshiba himself trained, how he practiced and what &
how he taught. This is a fme idea, provided we can actually find out
how he trained & practiced and also what he taught. As a matter of
fact this is rather difficult and we are not helped so much by Ueshiba's
own writings.
Morihei Ueshiba was a Japanese living in the Taisho'Early Showa eras
and 'taught' his aikido in a conservative and quintessentially Japanese
way. He wrote virtually nothing apart from a diary and an annotated
edition of Omsaburo Deguchi's Reikai Monogatari. both of which
appear to have been lost but he did give many lectures and discourses,
some of which have been published in book form. His published
'writings' in English are translations of Douka and excerpts from the
spoken discourses and interviews. There are no dedicated editions of
Ueshiba's writings in English Thus there is no guarantee that simply
reading those of his so-called writings that have been translated from
the original Japanese will enable anyone to find out how he trained &
practiced and also what he taught. Additional, more circumstantial,
evidence is required.
The first column specified the issues m the form of three propositions:
the activities of teaching, learning and 'stealing*, especially as these
applied to Morihei Ueshiba and his immediate disciples, and also the
crucial relationship between these activities and their own (and our
own) personal training regimes.
As they progress with their training, aikidoists tend to encounter vari-
ous problems, when they are led to question the validity of what they
are doing. They practice under the supervision of a 'Sensei', who has
also practiced, and perhaps received his license to teach, from another
'Sensei' and the partem then is to trace the lineage and also compe-
tence as an aikidoist and an aikido teacher, right back to 0 Sensei. who
is generally considered to be the Source (apologies to the Wachowski
brothers), hence the connotation of the Japanese term Sensei.
The problems arise when these aikidoists encounter exponents of other
martial arts, who tell aikidoists that they are lacking m their technique
and training, and also when the)* encounter other exponents of aikido
who are from a different lineage to their own. How is it possible that
aikido can be lacking in such essential skills, given that the Foimder
was the Source, and how is it possible that there can be so many differ-
ent 'schools' of aikido. when there is only one Founder/Source? The
problems have led to much discussion, especially on dedicated web-
sites like AikiWeb. and have also led dedicated aikidoists to question
severely their own training history. There is no point m going into
denial here. The problems exist and the most honest approach is to
admit this and then try to find a way to resolve the dilemma m the best
traditions of BUN BU: by study and training.
One way out of the dilemma is to argue that aikido has changed over
the generations and that m order to practice 'real' aikido. one has to
follow m Neo's footsteps and go back to the Source and actually study
how Morihei Ueshiba himself trained, how he practiced and what &
how he taught. This is a fme idea, provided we can actually find out
how he trained & practiced and also what he taught. As a matter of
fact this is rather difficult and we are not helped so much by Ueshiba's
own writings.
Morihei Ueshiba was a Japanese living in the Taisho'Early Showa eras
and 'taught' his aikido in a conservative and quintessentially Japanese
way. He wrote virtually nothing apart from a diary and an annotated
edition of Omsaburo Deguchi's Reikai Monogatari. both of which
appear to have been lost but he did give many lectures and discourses,
some of which have been published in book form. His published
'writings' in English are translations of Douka and excerpts from the
spoken discourses and interviews. There are no dedicated editions of
Ueshiba's writings in English Thus there is no guarantee that simply
reading those of his so-called writings that have been translated from
the original Japanese will enable anyone to find out how he trained &
practiced and also what he taught. Additional, more circumstantial,
evidence is required.
The first column specified the issues m the form of three propositions:
Transmission
2. Morihei Ueshiba made no attempt to 'teach'the knowledge and
skills he possessed to his deshi;
2. The latrer all gained profound knowledge and skills during their
lime as deshi, but it is by no means clear that they gained all the
knowledge or that all gained the same knowledge.
i. Morihei Ueshiba appears to have made no specific attempt to
check whether his deshi had understood what they had learned
from him.
In this column we will consider the first of these propositions, espe-
cially the vertical relationship between teacher and student as this is
seen in Japan.
Transmission
1. Morihei Ueshiba made no attempt to 'teach' the knowledge and
skills he possessed to his deshi.
I have put 'teach' in quotation marks, because of doubt about the pre-
cise sense the term had for Morihei Ueshiba. I think that what he was
doing was certainly quite different from the aikido teaching I myself
experienced m the UK and US before coming to Japan. This doubt is
also closely bound up with the question of 'stealing' techniques, which
I take to mean learning what has not been explicitly taught (though it
might have been shown intentionally). From all accounts that I have
read and also that I have heard from the deshi themselves. Morihei
Ueshiba spent a very long time pursuing his own personal training,
such that what he actually showed his deshi is only the tip of a very
large iceberg. In fact, what he showed his deshi during practice almost
continually and exclusively were waza. without any technical explana-
tion, and he also left them to work out for themselves, not only what
they had been shown and the principles King behind this, but also the
training regime that resulted m such waza.
Ueshiba has been criticized for 'teaching'm this antiquated way and
for requiring his students to resort to such non-productive means as
'stealing' knowledge. If only he had used the well-tried 'western' meth-
ods, so familiar to us. of working through a well-defined syllabus,
presenting all the material and in a clear and logical fashion, with
periodic checks to see whether he had been understood, we woxdd now
be m a much better situation. The issues here are of fundamental im-
portance, not only to the way we practice the art nowadays, but also to
the way we actually conceive the art and frame what we are doing in
the dojo.
The first question that arises is how usual Morihei Ueshiba's approach
was in Japan, and so it is instructive to compare the teachmg of aikido
/Continued on page 2)
2. Morihei Ueshiba made no attempt to 'teach'the knowledge and
skills he possessed to his deshi;
2. The latrer all gained profound knowledge and skills during their
lime as deshi, but it is by no means clear that they gained all the
knowledge or that all gained the same knowledge.
i. Morihei Ueshiba appears to have made no specific attempt to
check whether his deshi had understood what they had learned
from him.
In this column we will consider the first of these propositions, espe-
cially the vertical relationship between teacher and student as this is
seen in Japan.
Transmission
1. Morihei Ueshiba made no attempt to 'teach' the knowledge and
skills he possessed to his deshi.
I have put 'teach' in quotation marks, because of doubt about the pre-
cise sense the term had for Morihei Ueshiba. I think that what he was
doing was certainly quite different from the aikido teaching I myself
experienced m the UK and US before coming to Japan. This doubt is
also closely bound up with the question of 'stealing' techniques, which
I take to mean learning what has not been explicitly taught (though it
might have been shown intentionally). From all accounts that I have
read and also that I have heard from the deshi themselves. Morihei
Ueshiba spent a very long time pursuing his own personal training,
such that what he actually showed his deshi is only the tip of a very
large iceberg. In fact, what he showed his deshi during practice almost
continually and exclusively were waza. without any technical explana-
tion, and he also left them to work out for themselves, not only what
they had been shown and the principles King behind this, but also the
training regime that resulted m such waza.
Ueshiba has been criticized for 'teaching'm this antiquated way and
for requiring his students to resort to such non-productive means as
'stealing' knowledge. If only he had used the well-tried 'western' meth-
ods, so familiar to us. of working through a well-defined syllabus,
presenting all the material and in a clear and logical fashion, with
periodic checks to see whether he had been understood, we woxdd now
be m a much better situation. The issues here are of fundamental im-
portance, not only to the way we practice the art nowadays, but also to
the way we actually conceive the art and frame what we are doing in
the dojo.
The first question that arises is how usual Morihei Ueshiba's approach
was in Japan, and so it is instructive to compare the teachmg of aikido
/Continued on page 2)
with the teaching of other forms of structured activity or practice,
understood in a broad sense. Does the method of 'teaching', and also
the 'teaching' relationship between the master and student, change
according to what is being taught?
At the outset the heavily Confucian nature of the teaching role needs
to be stressed, as also the difference between this way of teaching and
the Socratic method, which as the name implies, originated with the
Greeks. In his book. Education in Tokugawa Japan. Ronald Dore
presents a picture of what and how Japanese teachers taught m the
domain schools. It was Confucian, in the sense that (1) knowledge was
bestowed from the teacher above and the students below had a moral
duty to understand and learn and, (2) the knowledge shown, and thus
the training to acquire it followed a prescribed pattern—one can say
that it was Aara-based. The students earned out their role by patient
listening and rote learning.
I think the best contemporary parallel is the learning of written Japa-
nese, especially the 2,000 Chinese characters in common use, in Japa-
nese schools. This awesome task is accomplished m several predeter-
mined steps and every single Japanese child in elementary and junior
high school goes through the same steps at the same time, all over
Japan. Everything is there: there is a determined order; students are
learn by endless repetition; they have to learn to write the easier char-
acters correctly before going on to the more difficult ones, but they
learn the underlying structures and principles as they go along; the
skills are so internalized that the)- become effortless. Westerners who
have merely to master the alphabet need to make a serious mental leap
to understand the dimensions of this learning process and also to see
how it establishes a Confucian learning paradigm that is right at the
centre of the cognitive process of any Japanese who has been through
the school system
That this Confucian attitude still exists today was brought home to me
quite forcefully by my first martial ans teacher, who was Japanese,
very traditional Japanese. We were total beginners and he presented
aikido as a part of traditional Japanese culture. At some pomt he de-
clared that in general it was quite wrong for students to cnticize or
question their teachers unless they could show that they knew better.
Questioning the teacher was m itself a form of criticism. This was not
particularly well received by us. his students, who were all studying at
university m the UK. I myself was brought up m a tradition that fa-
vored dialectic: engaging in disputation with the teacher, m an effort to
find holes and openings m his argument. This tradition, as I stated
above, ongmated with the Greeks and was copied m universities
throughout medieval Europe. It is qumtessentially 'western'. Again,
there is no point in denying that this tradition exists and is relevant to
training m Japanese martial arts.
I am pretty* sure that we did try to find holes and openings in our
teacher's waza. but we were complete beginners and none of us had
any expenence in other Japanese martial arts. His English was pretty
rudimentary and so he had us go through endless repetitions of such
exercises asfiina-kogi, simple ken and jo suburi. and complex ashi-
sabaki movements. Of course, there were waza. but these were only
the basics: 2 — 4kyou, the nage-waza otirimi-nage, kote-gaeshi. shiho-
nage and kairen-nage. and a few basic koshi waza and kokyu waza.
understood in a broad sense. Does the method of 'teaching', and also
the 'teaching' relationship between the master and student, change
according to what is being taught?
At the outset the heavily Confucian nature of the teaching role needs
to be stressed, as also the difference between this way of teaching and
the Socratic method, which as the name implies, originated with the
Greeks. In his book. Education in Tokugawa Japan. Ronald Dore
presents a picture of what and how Japanese teachers taught m the
domain schools. It was Confucian, in the sense that (1) knowledge was
bestowed from the teacher above and the students below had a moral
duty to understand and learn and, (2) the knowledge shown, and thus
the training to acquire it followed a prescribed pattern—one can say
that it was Aara-based. The students earned out their role by patient
listening and rote learning.
I think the best contemporary parallel is the learning of written Japa-
nese, especially the 2,000 Chinese characters in common use, in Japa-
nese schools. This awesome task is accomplished m several predeter-
mined steps and every single Japanese child in elementary and junior
high school goes through the same steps at the same time, all over
Japan. Everything is there: there is a determined order; students are
learn by endless repetition; they have to learn to write the easier char-
acters correctly before going on to the more difficult ones, but they
learn the underlying structures and principles as they go along; the
skills are so internalized that the)- become effortless. Westerners who
have merely to master the alphabet need to make a serious mental leap
to understand the dimensions of this learning process and also to see
how it establishes a Confucian learning paradigm that is right at the
centre of the cognitive process of any Japanese who has been through
the school system
That this Confucian attitude still exists today was brought home to me
quite forcefully by my first martial ans teacher, who was Japanese,
very traditional Japanese. We were total beginners and he presented
aikido as a part of traditional Japanese culture. At some pomt he de-
clared that in general it was quite wrong for students to cnticize or
question their teachers unless they could show that they knew better.
Questioning the teacher was m itself a form of criticism. This was not
particularly well received by us. his students, who were all studying at
university m the UK. I myself was brought up m a tradition that fa-
vored dialectic: engaging in disputation with the teacher, m an effort to
find holes and openings m his argument. This tradition, as I stated
above, ongmated with the Greeks and was copied m universities
throughout medieval Europe. It is qumtessentially 'western'. Again,
there is no point in denying that this tradition exists and is relevant to
training m Japanese martial arts.
I am pretty* sure that we did try to find holes and openings in our
teacher's waza. but we were complete beginners and none of us had
any expenence in other Japanese martial arts. His English was pretty
rudimentary and so he had us go through endless repetitions of such
exercises asfiina-kogi, simple ken and jo suburi. and complex ashi-
sabaki movements. Of course, there were waza. but these were only
the basics: 2 — 4kyou, the nage-waza otirimi-nage, kote-gaeshi. shiho-
nage and kairen-nage. and a few basic koshi waza and kokyu waza.
Ukemi was called 'receiving' and the extensive solo training here was
quite carefully contrasted with the qiute different role of ukemi with a
partner. I found out later that my first teacher simply reproduced with
us without any real explanation the training procedure he had under-
gone with his own teacher (who, incidentally, was also the teacher of
Minoru Inaba. of the Shiseikan Dojo). Since his English skills did not
allow him to give any real explanation of the purpose of the training
procedure. I think he hoped to plant seeds that would later germinate.
In due course. I also found out that this traditional Confucian partem of
teaching m the Japanese martial arts is duplicated in the teaching of
other activities. In the Japanese academic world, with which I am most
familiar, a rigid distinction is made in universities between teaching,
especially teaching undergraduate students, and conducting one's own
research The latter is definitely preferred and not much effort is in-
vested m the former. There are two reasons for this. One is that a pro-
fessor is evaluated by the research accomplished and not by the num-
ber of students taught. (I think that this has always been the case, but
only now has this begun to matter for the purposes of evaluation.) The
second reason, consequent on the first, is that the professor is never
explicitly taught how to teach. Teaching ability is expected to flow
naturally from expertise m research
Those students who somehow make the grade become research stu-
dents and thus become members of the professor's zemi (research
seminar). These students are closest to the deshi of a dojo (mdeed they
are also called deshi). They are chosen by the professor and really do
follow in the master's footsteps. In the old days the best deshi. m the
professor's eyes, inherited his position when he himself retired and the
pattern was repeated. The role of the zemi also explains the practice of
publishing material under the professor's name, when the actual re-
search and writing has been done by the deshi themselves. Given the
group cohesion of a zemi and the professor's central role m looking
after the members of the zemi. mcluding their future careers, this prac-
tice is not considered at all strange. That he should consent to allow his
name to be mcluded as author is an indication that the professor has
given his blessing and public approval to the research undertaken.
In Japan this teaching model flourished during the Tokugawa era with
Hayashi Razan and the Mito School and was the BUS' element in the
BUS'BU relationship, so closely favored by the samurai. Young samu-
rai spent their days studying the Confucian classics under the severe
guidance of a professor and then went into the dojo to tram in the
martial arts, under a teacher who gave similar severe guidance. How-
ever, the point to be stressed here is that the individual aspect of the
relationship is not so much teaching (as understood in a western
sense), as allowing the deshi to have a close relationship with the
master, as the latter developed his knowledge and skills.
However. one can argue that the parallels only go so far and are also
affected to some degree by what is actually being shown1' taughtI
learned. Consider the different activities or practice of (1) engineering,
for example, bridge-building. (2) medicine. (3) language-learning, and
(4) philosophy, as these are taught' learned m Japan. I have chosen
these examples because they present a spectrum of the ways m which
the cultural paradigms of the teacher-student relationship and teaching
/Continued on page 3)
quite carefully contrasted with the qiute different role of ukemi with a
partner. I found out later that my first teacher simply reproduced with
us without any real explanation the training procedure he had under-
gone with his own teacher (who, incidentally, was also the teacher of
Minoru Inaba. of the Shiseikan Dojo). Since his English skills did not
allow him to give any real explanation of the purpose of the training
procedure. I think he hoped to plant seeds that would later germinate.
In due course. I also found out that this traditional Confucian partem of
teaching m the Japanese martial arts is duplicated in the teaching of
other activities. In the Japanese academic world, with which I am most
familiar, a rigid distinction is made in universities between teaching,
especially teaching undergraduate students, and conducting one's own
research The latter is definitely preferred and not much effort is in-
vested m the former. There are two reasons for this. One is that a pro-
fessor is evaluated by the research accomplished and not by the num-
ber of students taught. (I think that this has always been the case, but
only now has this begun to matter for the purposes of evaluation.) The
second reason, consequent on the first, is that the professor is never
explicitly taught how to teach. Teaching ability is expected to flow
naturally from expertise m research
Those students who somehow make the grade become research stu-
dents and thus become members of the professor's zemi (research
seminar). These students are closest to the deshi of a dojo (mdeed they
are also called deshi). They are chosen by the professor and really do
follow in the master's footsteps. In the old days the best deshi. m the
professor's eyes, inherited his position when he himself retired and the
pattern was repeated. The role of the zemi also explains the practice of
publishing material under the professor's name, when the actual re-
search and writing has been done by the deshi themselves. Given the
group cohesion of a zemi and the professor's central role m looking
after the members of the zemi. mcluding their future careers, this prac-
tice is not considered at all strange. That he should consent to allow his
name to be mcluded as author is an indication that the professor has
given his blessing and public approval to the research undertaken.
In Japan this teaching model flourished during the Tokugawa era with
Hayashi Razan and the Mito School and was the BUS' element in the
BUS'BU relationship, so closely favored by the samurai. Young samu-
rai spent their days studying the Confucian classics under the severe
guidance of a professor and then went into the dojo to tram in the
martial arts, under a teacher who gave similar severe guidance. How-
ever, the point to be stressed here is that the individual aspect of the
relationship is not so much teaching (as understood in a western
sense), as allowing the deshi to have a close relationship with the
master, as the latter developed his knowledge and skills.
However. one can argue that the parallels only go so far and are also
affected to some degree by what is actually being shown1' taughtI
learned. Consider the different activities or practice of (1) engineering,
for example, bridge-building. (2) medicine. (3) language-learning, and
(4) philosophy, as these are taught' learned m Japan. I have chosen
these examples because they present a spectrum of the ways m which
the cultural paradigms of the teacher-student relationship and teaching
/Continued on page 3)
learning competence can be assessed, for the relationship and the
competence has to yield concrete, tangible results. The teacher-student
relationship is always traditionally based, in the way that I have de-
scribed above, but issues in different outcomes.
(1) In engineering, the teacher-student relationship has to issue in the
building of good bndges. whether these are m Japan or elsewhere,
which do not fall down under the weight of what passes over them. It
will not do to emphasize the high qualify of the teacher-student rela-
tionship if this basic competence or outcome is lacking. The point here
is that the activity or practice has to issue m concrete results like
bridges, the quality of which can be assessed objectively and relatively
easily. However, m Japan the basic teaching partem is the zemi, as
described above. The professor is primarily conducting research and
publishing the results of this research and the students learn by partici-
pating in the professor's research. Of course, the professor also gives
lectures to undergraduate classes and the students have the responsibil-
ity of diligently listening to these lectures, mastering the material and
then giving it back to the professor, m the form of answers to examina-
tion questions or m results of practical experiments.
(2) In medicine, the teacher-student relationship has to issue in compe-
tent doctors. The student has to pass an examination and be seen to
possess the skills required, in order to practice medicine profession-
ally. However, it seems to me that m Japan there is more of a personal
element involved here than in engineering. In Japan doctors can set up
clinics after a few years of training and people really choose to have
their operations based on the reputation of the individual doctor, rather
than on the proximity- of the nearest hospital. Of course, the activity of
medicine has to result m healthy patients and few deaths, but the as-
sessment of the outcomes, in terms of competence and incompetence,
is more difficult than m bndge-building. Whether a person is cured or
not cannot directly be related to the quality of the medical treatment
received. Here, again, the teaching pattern is the zemi and the students
leara by watching expenenced doctors at work and by participating m
their research Patients, too. have great respect for their doctors and
dutifully listen to the explanations he chooses to give them: they
hardly ever ask any questions.
(3) In language teaching and learning, it might be thought that the acid
test of the teacher-student relationship is the extent to which the
learner can display skills possessed by the native speaker. However,
this is not the case in Japan, where the established pattern of language-
learning is the study of texts written m English (novels by authors such
as Dickens and Virginia Woolf are good examples here), the transla-
tion of these texts mto Japanese, and the giving of detailed explana-
tions of these texts in Japanese. An alternative is the detailed examina-
tion of English grammar and teaching methodology, also in Japanese.
A professor, long passed away, once proudly told me that he was
probably the world's authority' on Chaucer's verbs. The members of his
zemi dutifully assisted his research m this arcane subject and some
went on to fill positions m the academic world secured by the profes-
sor as head of the zemi or gaku-batsu.
There is even more of a personal element involved here than m medi-
cine, since the desired outcomes are not what we might expect. Spoken
competence of a native-speaker of English, for example, is not consid-
competence has to yield concrete, tangible results. The teacher-student
relationship is always traditionally based, in the way that I have de-
scribed above, but issues in different outcomes.
(1) In engineering, the teacher-student relationship has to issue in the
building of good bndges. whether these are m Japan or elsewhere,
which do not fall down under the weight of what passes over them. It
will not do to emphasize the high qualify of the teacher-student rela-
tionship if this basic competence or outcome is lacking. The point here
is that the activity or practice has to issue m concrete results like
bridges, the quality of which can be assessed objectively and relatively
easily. However, m Japan the basic teaching partem is the zemi, as
described above. The professor is primarily conducting research and
publishing the results of this research and the students learn by partici-
pating in the professor's research. Of course, the professor also gives
lectures to undergraduate classes and the students have the responsibil-
ity of diligently listening to these lectures, mastering the material and
then giving it back to the professor, m the form of answers to examina-
tion questions or m results of practical experiments.
(2) In medicine, the teacher-student relationship has to issue in compe-
tent doctors. The student has to pass an examination and be seen to
possess the skills required, in order to practice medicine profession-
ally. However, it seems to me that m Japan there is more of a personal
element involved here than in engineering. In Japan doctors can set up
clinics after a few years of training and people really choose to have
their operations based on the reputation of the individual doctor, rather
than on the proximity- of the nearest hospital. Of course, the activity of
medicine has to result m healthy patients and few deaths, but the as-
sessment of the outcomes, in terms of competence and incompetence,
is more difficult than m bndge-building. Whether a person is cured or
not cannot directly be related to the quality of the medical treatment
received. Here, again, the teaching pattern is the zemi and the students
leara by watching expenenced doctors at work and by participating m
their research Patients, too. have great respect for their doctors and
dutifully listen to the explanations he chooses to give them: they
hardly ever ask any questions.
(3) In language teaching and learning, it might be thought that the acid
test of the teacher-student relationship is the extent to which the
learner can display skills possessed by the native speaker. However,
this is not the case in Japan, where the established pattern of language-
learning is the study of texts written m English (novels by authors such
as Dickens and Virginia Woolf are good examples here), the transla-
tion of these texts mto Japanese, and the giving of detailed explana-
tions of these texts in Japanese. An alternative is the detailed examina-
tion of English grammar and teaching methodology, also in Japanese.
A professor, long passed away, once proudly told me that he was
probably the world's authority' on Chaucer's verbs. The members of his
zemi dutifully assisted his research m this arcane subject and some
went on to fill positions m the academic world secured by the profes-
sor as head of the zemi or gaku-batsu.
There is even more of a personal element involved here than m medi-
cine, since the desired outcomes are not what we might expect. Spoken
competence of a native-speaker of English, for example, is not consid-
ered to be an indication of knowledge of that language. There are no
tests of native-speaker competence, short of the learner being able to
pass as a native to all mtents and purposes. The tests like TOEIC and
TOEFL are popular in Japan, but bear Utile relationship to the skills
possessed by native speakers. Assessment of teacher competence is
also difficult smce there is no consensus m Japan as to what consti-
tutes language proficiency. Here again, however, the teaching partem
is the zemi and the students learn by helping the professor to pursue
his research
(4) Philosophy has been practiced smce the ancient Greeks and has
been taught in universities for almost as long, but here there is even
less scope forjudging competence based on results. You become good
at philosophy by actually doing it and the Greek original favored a
confrontational approach based on the individual. Of course there
were schools of Platomsts and Aristotelians, but these were based on
the philosophical endeavors of two men. one of whom was a student in
the other's school, who broke away and formed a school of his own.
Philosophy is taught in Japanese universities, but it tends to be taught
as history, or by focusing on some famous philosopher, such as Hegel
or Heidegger. Here again, the teaching pattern is the zemi and the
students leam by helping the professor to pursue his research. How-
ever, it should come as no surprise that there are no original or famous
Japanese philosophers. The way of teaching is too Confucian and the
group cohesion is too pervasive to allow any nails to stick up.
In certain fields the efficiency' and efficacy of this approach is not in
question. There is a creative tension between the teacher and the forms
that constitute the practice and it works in many fields. The Japanese
are unrivalled at building complex structures and making machinery
and automobiles, where the 'kata-factor* and group cohesion is para-
mount. The approach seems to work far less well m fields where mdi-
vidual creativity is necessary.
Where woidd the martial arts, and especially aikido, fit? Is it more like
engineering, medicine, language-learning, or philosophy, or perhaps a
combination of all four? Aikido is a set of complex activities based on
principles and these are clearly teachable. The principles rest on the
activities and worldview of one particular person who was Japanese
and who followed a Japanese teaching paradigm- Given this paradigm,
however, there can be a gap between (a) the combination of these
activities.1' principles m Morihei Ueshiba's own waza, such that they are
one unified whole, (b) Ueshiba's own awareness of the unified whole
of these activities / principles, as his life proceeds, (c) Ueshiba's ability
to teach these activities / principles to his deshi. This matter is espe-
cially important if we consider the differences between aikido and its
parent Daito-ryu. and traditional koryu.
The waza that Monhei Ueshiba practiced m the Kobukan can be found
in the book Budo Renshu, produced m 1933 and handed out to select
deshi. However, neither the comments on the mdividual waza nor the
explanation given at the beginning of the book give any indication of
Ueshiba's own personal training schedule. The fact that the book was
handed out to select deshi indicates that Ueshiba used it as an indica-
tion of progress achieved, as he did also with the mokuroku scrolls that
summarize the waza contained m the book. The contents of Budo
Renshu should be compared with the Asahi Shmbun tape made in
tests of native-speaker competence, short of the learner being able to
pass as a native to all mtents and purposes. The tests like TOEIC and
TOEFL are popular in Japan, but bear Utile relationship to the skills
possessed by native speakers. Assessment of teacher competence is
also difficult smce there is no consensus m Japan as to what consti-
tutes language proficiency. Here again, however, the teaching partem
is the zemi and the students learn by helping the professor to pursue
his research
(4) Philosophy has been practiced smce the ancient Greeks and has
been taught in universities for almost as long, but here there is even
less scope forjudging competence based on results. You become good
at philosophy by actually doing it and the Greek original favored a
confrontational approach based on the individual. Of course there
were schools of Platomsts and Aristotelians, but these were based on
the philosophical endeavors of two men. one of whom was a student in
the other's school, who broke away and formed a school of his own.
Philosophy is taught in Japanese universities, but it tends to be taught
as history, or by focusing on some famous philosopher, such as Hegel
or Heidegger. Here again, the teaching pattern is the zemi and the
students leam by helping the professor to pursue his research. How-
ever, it should come as no surprise that there are no original or famous
Japanese philosophers. The way of teaching is too Confucian and the
group cohesion is too pervasive to allow any nails to stick up.
In certain fields the efficiency' and efficacy of this approach is not in
question. There is a creative tension between the teacher and the forms
that constitute the practice and it works in many fields. The Japanese
are unrivalled at building complex structures and making machinery
and automobiles, where the 'kata-factor* and group cohesion is para-
mount. The approach seems to work far less well m fields where mdi-
vidual creativity is necessary.
Where woidd the martial arts, and especially aikido, fit? Is it more like
engineering, medicine, language-learning, or philosophy, or perhaps a
combination of all four? Aikido is a set of complex activities based on
principles and these are clearly teachable. The principles rest on the
activities and worldview of one particular person who was Japanese
and who followed a Japanese teaching paradigm- Given this paradigm,
however, there can be a gap between (a) the combination of these
activities.1' principles m Morihei Ueshiba's own waza, such that they are
one unified whole, (b) Ueshiba's own awareness of the unified whole
of these activities / principles, as his life proceeds, (c) Ueshiba's ability
to teach these activities / principles to his deshi. This matter is espe-
cially important if we consider the differences between aikido and its
parent Daito-ryu. and traditional koryu.
The waza that Monhei Ueshiba practiced m the Kobukan can be found
in the book Budo Renshu, produced m 1933 and handed out to select
deshi. However, neither the comments on the mdividual waza nor the
explanation given at the beginning of the book give any indication of
Ueshiba's own personal training schedule. The fact that the book was
handed out to select deshi indicates that Ueshiba used it as an indica-
tion of progress achieved, as he did also with the mokuroku scrolls that
summarize the waza contained m the book. The contents of Budo
Renshu should be compared with the Asahi Shmbun tape made in
1935 and also with the small Budo volume, printed in 193S and also
handed out to select deshi. It has been stated that the Asahi Shinbun
tape depicts a type of practice that is closer to present-day aikido than
to Daito-ryu seen in Budo Renshu and the Noma Dojo photo archive,
but there is difference of only three years between Budo Renshu and
the Asahi tape
With this in mind, one can restate the issues in the previous paragraph
m another way. (a) There is a creative tension between Morihei Ue-
shiba's personal training regime and the aikido waza that he created, or
adapted from Daito-ryu. Did he see training and waza as two separate
wholes, as two separate parts of one whole, or as one undivided
whole? All the deshi I have talked to choose the third alternative, but
stress that he taught only waza and some mdividual exercises like
fiina-kogi/tori-fune.furitama. suburi and some breathing exercises, (b)
Morihei Ueshiba framed continuously from adolescence until when he
died at the age of 86. Thus there is a personal history, of the maturing
of one person. However, his discourses cover only a part of this his-
tory, in the sense that they were put together towards the end of this
period, in the Kobukan years and afterwards, when he had embraced
the Omoto religion- Only a few deshi were intellectually equipped to
grasp how he presented what he was going through at the time, (c) All
the deshi I have talked to at length about Morihei Ueshiba's teaching
methodology (Noro. Tada. Yamaguchi, Ankawa, Isoyama) stress that
Morihei Ueshiba showed waza and refrained from technical explana-
tions, but gave long discourses about the universe etc. that they were
not able to imderstand at the time.
Thus, it should come as no surprise to learn that Ueshiba followed the
traditional teaching partem sketched earlier. Of course, there is a dif-
ference m size between a large university and a small dojo, but there is
far less difference m size between the early Kobukan. for example, and
the traditional university zemi, within a department and within a fac-
ulty. The deshi m the Kobukan were close aides m an ongoing re-
search process and also shared in this process, often without being
fully aware of what was going on. We will examine this awareness and
its limitations m the next column.
handed out to select deshi. It has been stated that the Asahi Shinbun
tape depicts a type of practice that is closer to present-day aikido than
to Daito-ryu seen in Budo Renshu and the Noma Dojo photo archive,
but there is difference of only three years between Budo Renshu and
the Asahi tape
With this in mind, one can restate the issues in the previous paragraph
m another way. (a) There is a creative tension between Morihei Ue-
shiba's personal training regime and the aikido waza that he created, or
adapted from Daito-ryu. Did he see training and waza as two separate
wholes, as two separate parts of one whole, or as one undivided
whole? All the deshi I have talked to choose the third alternative, but
stress that he taught only waza and some mdividual exercises like
fiina-kogi/tori-fune.furitama. suburi and some breathing exercises, (b)
Morihei Ueshiba framed continuously from adolescence until when he
died at the age of 86. Thus there is a personal history, of the maturing
of one person. However, his discourses cover only a part of this his-
tory, in the sense that they were put together towards the end of this
period, in the Kobukan years and afterwards, when he had embraced
the Omoto religion- Only a few deshi were intellectually equipped to
grasp how he presented what he was going through at the time, (c) All
the deshi I have talked to at length about Morihei Ueshiba's teaching
methodology (Noro. Tada. Yamaguchi, Ankawa, Isoyama) stress that
Morihei Ueshiba showed waza and refrained from technical explana-
tions, but gave long discourses about the universe etc. that they were
not able to imderstand at the time.
Thus, it should come as no surprise to learn that Ueshiba followed the
traditional teaching partem sketched earlier. Of course, there is a dif-
ference m size between a large university and a small dojo, but there is
far less difference m size between the early Kobukan. for example, and
the traditional university zemi, within a department and within a fac-
ulty. The deshi m the Kobukan were close aides m an ongoing re-
search process and also shared in this process, often without being
fully aware of what was going on. We will examine this awareness and
its limitations m the next column.
| pgoldsbury_2007_04.pdf |
