Ken Tai Ichi no Kata Example

Ken tai ichi no kata is a kata included in part four of Jan de Jong’s jujutsu shodan grading. It involves the ‘[d]emonstration of katana techniques and the unarmed application’ (Jan de Jong Self Defence School, 1997, Jan de Jong: the man, his school, and his ju jitsu system, author). The kata is designed to demonstrate the similarities between katana (sword) and unarmed techniques (Why? That is a question that can and should be raised. Some other time perhaps).

The final sword technique in the kata involves both uke and tori assuming aigedan kamae (grading sheet), or gedan-no-kamae (lower-level posture). Kamae refers to combat-engagement posture. Gedan means lower-level, which in this case means that the sword is pointing in the direction of uke but towards the ground. This combat-engagement posture is inviting an attack (a tactical lesson that should be learned from this kata but which is not understood or taught by most).

JDJ instructed that uke attacks with a downward strike while tori does not use an evasive body-movement (referred to as taisabaki) to avoid injurious contact with the body or to reposition themselves to attack, and tori raises their sword no higher than uke’s throat. JDJ was explicit and consistent with those instructions. 

The only problem is, if uke and tori perform the attack and defence as instructed, they both die. It ends in a mutual slaying. What’s going on here? That question is how Klein operationalises his curiosity path to insight that can lead to a new and better understanding (see post #3 in this series).

I raised this question with my instructors, and when I say instructors, I mean all of the main instructors in the JDJSDS as I trained extensively under all of them (see post #3 in this series). I don’t deal well with inconsistencies (inconsistencies are one of the five paths to gaining insight according to Klein (see post #3)). I received no answer to my question from any of the aforementioned instructors.

I raised this issue when training with another of JDJ’s instructors. He defended JDJ’s instructions, adopting the common ‘teach as you are taught without question’ approach (see previous post). Out of frustration, I suggested a physical demonstration.

He attacked. I defended exactly as JDJ instructed. Fortunately, he did not follow through with his attack otherwise I would have been cleaved in half, head to groin. He, on the other hand, was left a little confused when blood started to trickle down his front from the wound he sustained on his neck when he advanced onto the tip of my sword.

When I studied my instructors performing this defence, I found that they performed the defence by doing one of three things: (1) rely on uke not to follow through with their attack (compliant attacker), (2) use an evasive body-movement to avoid injurious contact with their body, and/or (3) raise their sword higher than the throat in order to deflect uke’s blade. But they didn’t explicitly teach either or all of those defensive moves as it would have gone against JDJ’s explicit and consistent instructions.

It is easy to criticise (or so they say), but what did I do in my grading? In all honesty, I cannot remember. I had to have done something because I’m still here. What did I teach? I taught the ‘workarounds’, however, I also shared with my students the problems in the propagated instructions of the defence.

Why didn’t I go to JDJ with my concerns? That is a good question, and one that I am only now asking myself. It was because I was a junior instructor and I had raised the issue with all of my instructors, the senior instructors in the school. I adopted the same attitude as I’ve recently observed in a JDJ ryuha (‘branch of the current’): it’s in the grading so do it as taught, faults and all.

I now have the answer to the problem of this suicidal defence as taught, which has provided insights that led to a new and better understanding.

The Answer: Part 1
We were teaching for Jan-Erik Karlsson (JEK) in Sweden in the mid-90s when we had a day off. JDJ spent the time with JEK, however, I had noticed that JEK had an extensive library which included an extensive collection of martial arts books. I asked JEK if I could spend time perusing his library, to which he generously gave permission.

I came across a lever-arch file with a photocopied book. One of the front pages featured a photo of Minoru Mochizuki. I recognised that photo because the first copy of Fighting Arts International that I purchased had a photo of Mochizuki on the front cover and the featured article was about him. At that time, we knew that JDJ had trained with Mochizuki but that was about all.

Reading the photocopied book, or at least looking at the illustrations given that the book was in Japanese, I ... was ... gobsmacked.

When I shared my ‘gobsmackedness’ with JDJ and JEK, the latter kindly gifted me the photocopied book (Giho Nihonden Jujutsu (Traditional Japanese Jujutsu)).

You cannot understand how world-changing reading this photocopied book was at that time. Remember, this was pre-YouTube. In that book was a lot of what we were teaching. There were the taisabaki and the way we teach them. There were the unbalancing (kuzushi) techniques from hand grips that we teach. Both of these elements form a part of all of the mon grades at the front end of the grading system and are part of the dan grades at the back end. There was happoken no kata from 8th kyu and itsitsu no kata from 2nd kyu. There was also ken tai ichi no kata from shodan.

JDJ, as I came to understand, never revealed the source of his teachings. He did not reveal that he was teaching the taisabaki, kuzushi from hand grips, happoken no kata, itsitsu no kata, ken tai ichi no kata from Mochizuki’s Yoseikan budo. This challenged the notion, which is still strongly held and promoted by most JDJ ryuha, that we were learning/teaching Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu jujutsu.

Many of the illustrations in Mochizuki’s Giho Nihonden Jujutsu were single hand-drawn images (see image above), so I still did not have an answer to my problem. That would come later with the purchase of two Mochizuki DVDs.

The Answer: Part 2
It was after JDJ passed away that I found a website selling martial arts DVDs that offered Mochizuki's Yoseikan Sogo Budo volumes 1 and 2. Upon purchase and viewing those DVDs, I was watching all of the above and more, and here was the answer to my question of more than 20 years.

JDJ had ‘misremembered’ the attack. The attack was a straight thrust with the sword. JDJ’s explicit and consistent instructions were effective against a straight thrust with the sword (and it better matched the unarmed attack). The defence worked and tori did not die. It’s just that JDJ misremembered the attack.

It was that simple, however, why didn’t anyone else raise this inconsistency (see above)? Why wasn’t anyone else curious (another of the five paths to insight that Klein identified; see post #3). Where was their insight and understanding?

This was the beginning of, or part of, my journey of discovery about JDJ’s teachings that has led to a new and better understanding.

Epilogue
After JDJ passed away in 2003, I went on to share my insights and Giho Nihonden Jujutsu with a couple of JDJ’s senior instructors. They had never heard of the book nor understood how much of JDJ’s teachings came from Yoseikan budo.

Among other things, this reinforced the idea that JDJ got his teachings from a variety of sources and that he did not disclose those sources when teaching. It reinforced the idea that JDJ was considered the ‘fount of all knowledge,’ and nobody studied anything outside of his teachings (e.g., see suwari waza no kata in a future post). It also showed that JDJ occasionally ‘got things wrong’ and that a bit of curiosity and scepticism did not go astray.