At this period, Ueshiba was teaching Daito-ryu. In fact, Takeshita refers to 'Dai-ikkajo, 166 techniques in all." Yet he was already using the term "kokyu." Is it possible that this is merely a change of "brand," concurrent with Ueshiba's first attempts to separate himself from Takeda Sokaku, as described
Kokyu; also referred to as breath power, was discussed by Tokimune, Kodo, and Sagawa; who publicly said he had no use for it (but brought it up anyway) yet privately trained it, Hisa, Okomoto, etc. So Kokyu was in DR, is in DR and is still taught by certain teachers to the present day.
He was also discussing many other principles of DR in the 30's as well, I just never considered his discussion of them as a separation to his own art. He was simply discussing what he was taught. I think we have to keep firmly in mind that our
discovery of things he may have said here or there as the first time we
saw it, has absolutely no relevance as to when he
might have said it for the first time.
To be sure, Ueshiba had his own interpretations, his own nuances - but was he really doing something different from "aiki," in the Daito-ryu sense?
Well, we both know our
views on this topic, so to the broader readership:
Did he ever do anything different from "aiki" in the Daito ryu sense? I have never seen it.
To me the vast majority of discussions on the internet, interviews and in books, revolve around the various external
expression of aiki and not what is actually going on. This is largely presented as an observation by those who don't understand what is going on or how it is done. I understand these issues are difficult and seem challenging and an afront to those in the arts. To others they are simply dimissed. Aiki, for them must be defined by rank and time-in. IME, this leads to observations and opinions that are flawed at a foundational level and leads to further confusion. Why? Because many of the seniors opinions on aiki in the aiki arts....are patently worthless.
In any event, since we are not assigning validation of opinon by actual ability, we are in a great many areas, reducing this once profound work -once held in the hands of men who were truly capable- down to a working understanding for Budo-ka who upon examination, feel no different than any other average Joe martial artist out there.
Couple of points on the article
If the use of hand blades as straining of hands
was all there is to it I would suggest the following:
* Either Takashita and friends and all those judoka were some truly ignorant martial artists to be so impressed by it.
* Or there is profound body skills behind the art that impressed people on contact and this fellow had no idea what he was observing and triyng to copy. If he did, the comment would not have been offered.
Why was it said?
I have read reviews of what was going on -by students of the same teacher- many times senior students. It is often striking to see how they differ. I attribute it more to the understanding -or lack thereof- of the student rather than the teacher teaching different things.