I don't think I truly understood how rare Budo was. At least English speakers have a translation. I guess that means that as a Japanese speaker one would have to be content with Saito's partial commentary for AikiNews.
I assume that this is one of Peter's points. Some folks have Budo in the original or a copy, some have a translation and some have an interpretation (Well actually a translation is an interpretation of sorts.), but, without the author to arbitrate, who knows for sure the precise intent and meaning? (As Peter pointed out, one probably lands a bit closer with Budo and Budo Renshu.) [BTW Doug, you know I have Budo Renshu, Budo, Shinzui and Takemusu all in the Japanese originals if you want more homework . . . heh, heh, heh
However, I agree that folks should have the opportunity to make their own mistakes. Have for a long time. I encouraged Prof. Stevens to parallel print back in the '80's but I don't know how much of this was under in his control anyway.
It isn't surprising that a person of Peter's specific academic background's (Specifically in European Languages relating to religion but also well placed, of extended residency and well educated in Japanese) skin should crawl at the notion of casual hobbyists "thumping" translated text faithfully proselytizing a message that he has concluded cannot be decisively concluded.
Of course some might argue that they need not rely upon text alone. They heard things directly from the source's mouth, or at least their teacher did. However, if this produced a common understanding, why did so many say that O-sensei's dissertations were virtually incomprehensible and why the seeming disparity in interpretation and meaning (especially generationally) why the all fuss?
You certainly don't disappoint! I went to bed late again last night . . thanks a lot . . .
(Do you know your European travel dates yet? If so can you PM me? Things are filling in fast for my itinerary including Europe but I'd still like to coordinate a hook up if possible.)
All the best,