Ellis Amdur wrote:
[[Summarizing]]Cady - I'm seeing more and more evidence that, pre-war, Ueshiba taught these things. How else did Tomiki learn ... AND Shioda M-A-Y have learned a little ...
I think after the war,... he was not interested in making an effort. I will assert that he openly showed things [but] If you didn't get it from seeing it, maybe you weren't worth it. ... I think anyone is on the wrong track when one assumes that a) ueshiba didn't teach any of the good stuff b) that he was inferior in his attainment to the other best students of Sokaku
Is this anything but argument in search of evidence of the preferred outcome?. Isn't the better practice to look at the evidence presented and then make decisisons about what conclusions it can concieveably support and then weigh those theories that it best supports?
Both the Doka quoted above [#18 ] that deny the existence of or any purposes in seeking "secrets" beyond the omote technqiue are from Budo Renshu (1933), not post- war, at all. There is no discontinuity. The only response seem to be that he could not know what he was saying [because it disagrees with their argument].
Why is O Sensei NOT the best witness of what Aikido was, where its revelation came from (kenjutsu) and what it was supposed to accomplish. Internal arts and "the skills" as advocated here are all fine and a venerable tradition, but, and I mean this as a frank and honest question, why does the theory that aikido has lost the secrets of their use, as the proponents say, require contradicting what he actually said about these things?