Re: Omoto-kyo Theology
Thanks for writing.
On some historical points:
I think you are either overstating what folks have been saying about the historical significance of Omoto-kyo or understating the implication of your statements made thus for OR that you and I can agree on the position that all of this stuff has to be considered if one wants to do a history of the Founder (which may itself be irrelevant to one's actual practice). I'm going to opt to go with the latter position if you don't mind, so we can move forward.
I agree with much of what you say here, however, where I part is over the type of significance you give to the Founder and/or to his path when it comes to defining things, events, paths, etc. This is read by me in the phrases you use, like, "Osensei defined Aikido..." "In seeking Osensei...(outside of historical investigations)," "According to the Founder...," etc.
Here's an exact example: "Well, as for the first, according to the Founder, winning and losing are not part of the Aikido praxis, either on the physical or spiritual plain. So once again, I would have to wonder as to the relevance of that path. Having said that, I certainly would agree that the techniques (the waza itself) must be martially viable - just not in terms of victory or defeat."
Where I part is where you determine relevance by what the Founder said or did - where you look at one path and then look at what the Founder did, and if that first path is different from how you see the Founder (or even from how it is), you come to determine the former as irrelevant and/or suspect for relevance. That is where you and I part in our opinions. I have chosen not do that. I have my reasons for not doing that - just as you have your reasons for doing that. These reasons are different from each other.
thanks so much for the reply,