Is Aikido Budo?

[Peter Rehse]

So what makes a Budo? And how does the Aikido you are taught fit into your definition?

[SeiserL]

IMHO, Aikido is Budo but not Bujutsu. Aikido is primarily a way of self-development through the physical practice of a martial art. Aikido, in its currently popularly practiced form, a practical fighing combat system. The fighing combat aspect is secondary.

[Peter Rehse]

Hi Lynn;

Hoping for more takers.

I believe I train primarily in a Budo - Aikido is just the name which my teacher describes what he does. If Aikido no longer has enough martial integrety to be a Budo than I think it can no longer be called Aikido. Where that line is is debateable but I definately do not mean one has to constantly train to fight in the mythical street. What I do mean is that consideration has to be given to what would work in an extreme situation.

I've heard certain people say with a straight face that Kendo and Judo are not true Budo because they are a sport but the most non-martial of Aikido is "true Budo".

As you know I am of the distinction between Budo and Bujutsu is blurry school.


So to answer my own question and hopefully stir up a bit of activity.

Budo is self developement through the cultivation of martial technique.
Those techniques must be viewed through the lens of practicality even if it means understanding the subtle shifts necessary to make it more effective and less safe.

My Aikido based on that definition is a Budo.

[Bugeisha]

My aikido experience is severely limited; I trained 5 days a week, 2hrs a day, for about six months. That was a few years ago. I've been dissatisfied with my current training recently, and on tuesday the 2nd, I'm returning to aikido. Due to my lack of experience in aikido, I hesitated to post on this thread, but I feel that my post is relevant regardless. I'm returning to aikido based on the fact that I see it as budo. The dojo that I will be training at is known for being a little rougher than others in the area, but I feel that the martial edge to the training is a necessity to really get "the spirit of the thing."
Anyway, just my undereducated opinion.

[Peter Rehse]

I feel that the martial edge to the training is a necessity to really get "the spirit of the thing."

I agree - too many put the cart before the horse.

[mateo]

I think the martial aspects need not be so important to rate something a form of budo. I think most people believe that budo is by definition a method of self cultivation which has some connection to military arts.

Is Kyudo not budo? It does not seem to be a battlefield martial art any longer but I would say it exemplifies a martial path toward self cultivation.

Budo may even be defined as a martial discipline that replaced the practical application of killing techniques as its primary reason for being for the role of character improvement and personal interspection.

Just my opinion,

[Peter Rehse]

Very good points especially about the Kyudo.

<Moderator hat on>
You must sign your posts with your real name - easily done by editing your signature
<Moderator hat off>

Martial does not necessarily mean battlefield to me - lots of what we consider Budo would not apply including most forms of Jujutsu. However what I do mean is that consideration must be given to effect rather than just show.

Kyudo actually fits quite well into this since its effect can be measured quite easily - an arrow into the target. Well aware that hitting the target is not a goal in an of itself but they are still aiming. No one judges Kyudo on how pretty they look.

With respect to Aikido I also don't think it matters how much pain one can generate or how hard a slam you can produce (hurt a compliant uke in my group and I feed you to "the beast") but it really is important to understand your technique in that context. Would it work? And if it doesn't will what I'm doing improve my ability to make other things work?

As soon as you don't care about answering the last questions - you are no longer doing Budo.

I really like the point Dillon made. In my opinion it is a mistake to approach Aikido via the philosophical underpinnings. First it must be treated as a series of working techniques - then the circumstance of when and how to apply those techniques.

I think the martial aspects need not be so important to rate something a form of budo. I think most people believe that budo is by definition a method of self cultivation which has some connection to military arts.

Is Kyudo not budo? It does not seem to be a battlefield martial art any longer but I would say it exemplifies a martial path toward self cultivation.

Budo may even be defined as a martial discipline that replaced the practical application of killing techniques as its primary reason for being for the role of character improvement and personal interspection.

Just my opinion,

[mateo]

I think Rehse will be in agreement with me here, as will others with experience living in Japan, on the use of the terms 'budo' and 'bujutsu'.

I think sometimes that aikidoka and judoka have their own idiosyncratic ways of looking at the word budo based upon their respective Founders take on the term.

However if we asked a jujutsu instructor in your local Himeji if he practised budo I think he would unblinkingly respond "Yes" and if you stated that you thought he was practising "bujutsu" and not "budo" I believe that he would laugh and think it absurd to differentiate.

I'm taking some license here but I believe that Shioda Gozo stated something to the effect of "There are many paths to the summit but there is only one goal." Both Ko Ryu forms and Gendai Budo may lead their practitioners to a state of enlightenment and in this way they are both 'budo'.

It is however sometimes expedient to use the terms 'budo' and 'bujutsu' to divide arts based upon primary emphasis and this was used to great effect by the respected Mr. Donn Draeger however I don't think that this really conforms to the actual use of the terms in Japan and much of the newer work in English on the subject seeks to reflect this. I think Kano Jigaro did however differentiate the terms in this way and judoka often follow suit.

I think however that rather than wrestling with the semantics you are actually concerned with martial feasibility of aikido technique as taught in the dojo.

I practised Daito-ryu with the then Takumakai, now Hakuho-ryu, Group, while I was in Osaka. Their technique was often severe in the kind of damage it sought to do and was done with great percision and subtlety. Very dramatic finishes with crushingly real results held in check. BUT I often thought that one of my hapkido brethren or a good judoka or wrestler would have cleared the aikijujutsu dojo out given their greater experience in knowing how to APPLY the simpler, less severe waza they knew from practising on resisting and unpredictably moving partners.

We know of course that wrestling is NOT 'budo' although it has a martial history and martial applications. There is no conscious effort at self cultivation and looking for deeper philosophical meaning in the sport.

I have no doubt that the daito-ryu practised by Okabayashi-sensei is a budo form in that its exponents do believe that the waza will instill greater understanding of the world at large and its inner workings in the practitioner.

I also feel that the aiki budo I was exposed while in Shizuoka by Mochizuki Minoru sought to be and was successful at being a budo form despite being less martial. I think perhaps it was more so due to the degree of importance it placed upon character cultivation and the education of the practitioner.

If it were even less martial and more dance-like it may be that there would not be enough of the martial applications left in the art for one to associate it with any kind of fighting technique at all. At that point I guess one could cease to call it budo. But who will draw the line that says this is too far and that is still legitimate budo. I guess I think it is more practical to acknowledge that something originates from a martial backgound and choose the art with the level of realism (as we perceive it) that we are comfortable with to practise personally.

Sorry to talk at length on a long dead thread but I thought that there were things still left to be said on a interesting topic.

[Peter Rehse]

Nice Post Mathew. Rounded out the discussion nicely.

[backwardwalker]

To me, the question of whether Aikido is Budo can be answered by asking a few simple questions.
First though, I happen to love Aikido. But, I do happen to completely disapprove of the way it is taught and practiced. It should be very different.

1) Is it is practiced against varying degrees of resistance like judo and wrestling? Sadly, no. Yet, practical skills cannot develop without realistic resistance and learning to handle Uke's shoving, stiffiness and hard to control motion.
2) Is it practiced against holds and situations one is likely to encounter in a sport event or a street situation? Mostly, no. Wrestling and judo both use a wide variety of headlocks, bodylocks and leg tackles plus lots of ground grappling and move freely around the mat.
3) Is it practiced in a competitive manner like wrestling and judo where both combatants are trying to win and where the techniques require plenty of adaptation to changing position, force and timing? No. The receiver is highly cooperative, takes falls because of tradition, breaks off the attack and never follows up on errors or openings. There is no continuous cycle of attack and counterattack like wrestling and judo.
4) Is it practiced at a distance which occurs in sport and street situations? No. The distance is mostly formalized unlike judo randori and wrestling which include very short range situations.
5) Is it practiced with strong and realistic strikes? No, the strikes are weak, predictable, unrealistic and formalized. Perhaps they are intended only for learning purposes.
I've practiced and continue to practice wrestling, judo, and aikido. Aikido has a huge number of techniques that can be used to win against the other grappling arts yet very few people ever explore it from the right point of view. I've been working seriously at using aikido with wrestling and it's quite interesting what has come out of this..I'm not referring here to fairly dangerous moves like wristlocks and facial strikes. There are many clever ways of using Aikido in free practice without relying upon these fairly 'unsafe' tactics.
A few techniques every Aikidoka should know because they are more powerful and common to other arts are the russian underarm spin throw (uchi kaiten nage..almost) , the outside shoulder throw (Ude Kimenage) and the duckunder (as an entry to Iriminage).. to name a few. By studying these and several other techniques, we can add competitiveness, resistance, timing and power to our aikido. The techniques are safe and proven in wrestling and judo where they are practiced against full resistance.

Tomiki was a great innovator and a blessing but he didn't go far enough. We need an Aikido that can defeat the wrestlers and judoka at their distance and not rely so heavily on being able to avoid pressure, grips and force. I believe there are techniques to be explored and refined that go beyond what we have seen so far in most dojos. I notice that nobody would even think of asking the wrestlers if their art is practical. The very question itself indicates there are serious problems with our current understanding and practices.
I often challenge the other Aikidoka to use their technique against simple attacks like chest shoves, throat grabs, tight gi grabs, light boxing attacks to the head and high level tackles. Sadly, even the black belts are unfamiliar with how to handle these and other common situations. I only do this with my practice partners and never use enough force to strain or hurt anyone. The reason they fail to handle these and other attacks is most people don't train with any kind of reality in mind. It's time to bring aikido back to earth, away from the mystical direction Ueshiba and others have mistakenly turned it.
I believe Aikido is becoming weaker and less connected to reality all the time. I want to change this trend and make Aikido the leader of the mixed martial arts community.

Sincerely,
Mark T

[_Xi]

Not bad for his first post.

[rupertmja]

I second that!

[Peter Rehse]

Tomiki was a great innovator and a blessing but he didn't go far enough. We need an Aikido that can defeat the wrestlers and judoka at their distance and not rely so heavily on being able to avoid pressure, grips and force.
That is why we have cross-training.

[DragonMind]

May I introduce another perspective to the budo vs. bujutsu quandry? Much has been made about an either/or situation. More realistic is that these are merely end-points on a continuum. Different systems fall at different points on that continuum and perhaps it would be more productive to speak of degree of budo/bujutsu-ness rather than trying to assign Aristotelian absolute values.

[Erik]

Maybe I don't understand this like you guys do, but it seems to me that the "jitsu" of bujitsu is like a soldier's skills of marching, finding cover, shooting, etc. These are very fundamental and practical skills and a soldier will learn fight with them.

The "do" of budo is more (as I see it) like the deeper lessons one learns while on a forced road march about how to let the mind go and keep walking while exhausted, carrying weight, and not knowing where you're going. "Do" is also the practicing of the imagry of seeing the line of bullet travel toward the target as opposed to point, breathe, shoot.

The "do" is the group of philosophies of warriorship where "jitsu" is the set of skills of soldiering.

How this applies to aikido - I think it's a "do" as it's about philosophies and principles and the physical actions are practicing metaphors for said philosophies and principles. This is not to say that it's impractical, but I think it's more about fighting than how to fight, and hence a "do" and not a "jitsu."

This is how I see it. Maybe I'm waaaay off. You aikido guys will have to tell me if I am off.