"Aikido is not a complete martial art." - this is an assertion often encountered in the never-ending debates about the art. Interestingly enough, I've seen it coming from both pro- and anti-Aikido sides. Either way, it is particularly relevant to arguments based around the context and purposes of Aikido or, for that matter, any martial art.
Some people reject this type of argument, seeming to think a martial art should be universal applicable or else it would be useless. In the case of Aikido, there are certain complicating factors, some of which are integral to the major point to be made. First, however, I wish to establish that it is both possible, even probable, for a martial art to be specialized to particular purposes, and therefore not "complete", or rather, not aimed at every kind of combat; and that understanding that purpose is essential.
Any tool or technique has its particular purpose, a job it is meant to do. If one uses it incorrectly, or for a different purpose, it may work poorly or not at all. If one wishes to paint a house, it's important to use a suitable brush: a calligraphy brush for writing on a small piece of paper would be very unsuitable. If one wants to compete in Olympic Tae Kwon Do, one should train in a dojang that teaches tournament TKD. A school that specializes in self-defense or military applications would get you in trouble with the referees and perhaps cause major injury to opponents not trained to meet real violence, but only controlled, rule-bound, tournament fighting. And a Tai Chi Chuan school would do you no good at all, outside of cross-training purposes. Similarly, it's important to understand what a particular art is designed for. This is perhaps especially relevant to traditional Japanese martial arts: a samurai-era soldier would likely receive training in how to use different weapons, and each would be part of its own martial art, taught by those with particular expertise.
Aikido is primarily a variant of the older art Daito Ryu: Morihei Ueshiba was a licensed instructor of Daito Ryu, and he adapted it in accord with his continual training and experimentation; but they remain close enough that they can be regarded as a continuum, especially for the points we are consider. That is to say, the original purpose of Daito Ryu gives it its particular traits, many of which remain as part of Aikido.
Every account of Daito Ryu that I have seen describes it as originally an advanced, elite art taught only to the members of the Takeda noble family and their closest and best retainers. As a general rule, all of these people would be already highly trained in the regular martial arts of Takeda samurai. Notably, in a similar way, most of Morihei Ueshiba's students were already skilled in other arts, often black belts who were sent to him by their teachers for more advanced training; all were generally required to come with recommendations from respectable people. Martial artists in these kinds of environments and periods gained complete, or at least varied, martial arts skills by training different arts, not looking for a single "complete martial art". In other countries, to be sure, many schools were more or less comprehensive,
When Kisshomaru Ueshiba took over the administrative leadership of Aikido from father Morihei, he made significant changes which included allowing the general public to become students, with or without previous martial arts experience, so many students from that time on have indeed not had a "complete martial art", since the art still had and has the specialized nature coming from its roots.
Now, the burning question should be what exactly was the nature of the specialization of Daito Ryu? Those addressing the issue have generally taken it to be an advanced jujutsu meant for rare situations of becoming disarmed on the battlefield. It probably would indeed be useful in that circumstance, but in that case, it would be useful for all soldiers of the Takeda fief who achieved sufficient skill, as would also be the case if it were simply a superior fighting art, due to the prominent element of aiki skills. But instead we are told that it was restricted to a small, elite group. I find this restriction to be very significant, especially in conjunction with the features of the art itself.
Logically, if the art is so restricted, it probably meets a particular need shared by the members of that group, and not by the rest of the Takeda clan's military. Perhaps the traits of the art may give us clues as to what that need was? The skills of aiki are not actually relevant to this point; they are simply what made it so effective when mastered. Examples of traits that do seem relevant include these, in no particular order:
- disarming techniques, whereby one takes a sword or knife or other weapon from someone who is attacking
- kneeling/seated techniques, including dealing with an attack while one is seated and the other may or may not be.
- techniques are mainly for capture and neutralization without killing.
When I consider the tactical situations represented, along with the highly classified level restriction of the art and its student body, I am led very strongly to the hypothesis that Daito Ryu was intended primarily to train the Takeda family, their high officers, and bodyguards to be able to defend and counter against assassination attempts.
We can support this in light of the chosen traits: ordinarily samurai would be likely to simply kill an attacker, but an assassin would likely also be a spy, and the clan would want to capture and interrogate any assassin or spy. To modern people, even many Japanese, the practice of the kneeling techniques seems odd and outdated, but kneeling is one of Japan's traditional sitting postures, and while being attacked while kneeling would be rare on the battlefield, it would be precisely the kind of situation that one might be in when confronted by an assassin in pre-modern Japan, at a home, a palace, or some public place.
As such, my hypothesis is, again, that Daito Ryu and therefore also Aikido (and any other descendants, such as Hakko Ryu) was designed as a defense against assassinations. A possible piece of circumstantial evidence could be the extreme caution and precautions taken by Sokaku Takeda Sensei, for which he is famous in accounts of the history of these arts... basically, he was always on guard against assassins and assassination attempts. If true, this is why Aikido becomes an incomplete art when practiced by students who don't start with previous experience in martial arts. On the other hand, aiki, particularly the Founder's ideal of "takemusu aiki", spontaneous right action to thwart whatever attack comes, complicates our overall picture, mostly because once one reaches such a level, it effectively becomes a complete art. The problems that are so much argued about, and which some have actively explored remedies for, are primarily of prior stages of progress... takemusu is where it truly comes together and becomes the "my Aikido" that O-Sensei Morihei Ueshiba wanted his students and later lineage followers to achieve.
No comments:
Post a Comment