From: stark@dwovax.enet.dec.com (Todd I. Stark)
Subject: Re: Akido -vs- Akijitsu (meaning of _Aiki_
Summary: I didn't mean they were the same, I was discussing mng of _Aiki_
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  7 OCT 92 08:29:46    


Sorry for the digression, but I wanted to respond to Michael on a few
minor points.

mh4e@resumix.portal.com (Michael Heiler) writes...
>In article 27890@PA.dec.com, stark@dwovax.enet.dec.com (Todd I. Stark) writes:
>> 
>> This is a tricky language translation issue, but Aiki is a fairly generic 
>> term, I believe, not specifically related to vital force or internal 
>> energy as implied by reference to Qigong.  I'm aware that some schools claim to
>> preserve and a specific technical meaning for Aiki (right down to techniques and
>> combat exercises) as far back as the the 10th century or so.  But I don't
>> really think there's much evidence that Aikijutsu is any more than 
>> a name later reserved for certain schools of Taijutsu or Jujutsu that happened
>> to emphasize technical elements that were kept outside of Judo (for 
>> whatever reasons) when most of the JJ schools merged a century ago.   
>> 
>My understadning is AikiJuJutsu and JuJutsu were developed as two different arts
>during the feudal era of Japanese history, and the nomes of each were changed (to
>their current form) in the 19th century.

I see where my paragraph above may be unclear, but I think
we're splitting hairs on this point, Michael.  Like _aiki_, jujutsu is also a 
fairly generic term in common usage for a number of ryu.  Whether the 
Takeda/etc. lines are labelled as "Aiki..." vs. "Ju..." vs. "Tai..." at any 
given moment in history is I think a rather small point compared to the
actual details of what they were doing (which is very hard to determine
beyond a century or so ago).

>Having taken both, I can assure you there are more that just subtle 
> differences.  Their approaches to combat situations are completely different.

I can't argue with the obvious.  I've studied both as well, but needn't have
to come to the same conclusion.  They wouldn't have adopted a different
name if they intended to merge with the other jujutsu schools, as I said.
Maybe there is a misunderstanding of what I meant by 'emphasizing different
technical elements', that leads to a completely different combat equation,
as you stated.  I wasn't trying to imply that the arts are all the same
in any case.

My point was simply that I perceive it was a modern distinction
that was made between Aikijutsu/Aikijujutsu and Jujutsu, and that a hundred
or so years ago, it was all Jujutsu.  I made that statement in order to 
try to help support my argument to Andy that the 'Aiki' is generic and
not referring to the Ki development elements specifically, which are
actually found in many of the schools.

Which part of that argument are you contending ?   Or was there a
misunderstanding due to my vague quoted paragraph ?

> 
>- Mike
							kind regards,

							todd

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Todd I. Stark				  stark@dwovax.enet.dec.com |
| Digital Equipment Corporation		             (215) 354-1273 |
| VAX/VMS Software Support, Blue Bell, Pa.                          |
|    'Reason is no substitute for Passion, nor Passion for Reason.' |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts