Then when you hear from a deshi of the founder "O'Sensei was beyond technique." "I didn't understand a word he said." "O'Sensei mainly taught about spiritual matters." "O'Sensei didn't teach." you then might be able to catch the wink.
Most of us here really don't need a lesson on "tatemae/hone," nor the appellation that we just don't "get it." Yes we do; in context, with the appropriate nuance, and for many of us here with personal experience in both gendai and Koryu arts. Understanding it and dealing with it- does not mean we have to a) take pride in understanding it b) accept it as a good thing with our approval c) try to sell it as anything more than what it is.I'm NOT saying your are either.
Yes...many of us also caught the wink…at so many of the obfuscations about what they told us through the Eighties and nineties, till Stanley put them on the spot with contrary evidence.
About the deshi's actual training time with Ueshiba-which also proved highly suspect.
About their ever really being taught in detail or obversly the fact that they when they said they didn't get it their techniques proved their words to be true.
The "wink" during all the obfuscations and what some consider outright lies about Daito ryu -that came by way of the Hombu. Including a Shihan telling me it no longer existed.
I gave up investing in what they "say" interesting or not, and instead look for corroboration at every turn. It's why I appreciated Stanley's method of research.
All you are really forwarding is that we shouldn't be sure anyone knows anything about anyone or anything, accept of course --any- individual and --their- teacher; they'e different.
So you fellows can debate
Whether or not they really attacked
Whether or not they really even spent much training with him at all
Whether or not who was really being the actual Uke
Whether or not Ueshiba actually taught at the hombu during the tenure of many of the later deshi
Whether or not he trained in Daito ryu a little bit, a lotta bit or even ever met "Some guy" called Takeda at all.
I think I have failed in explaining what I believe is supposed to be happening in the transmission of an art from a Japanese teacher to a Japanese student.
There is no such thing as a fixed
Japanese transmission model, not even in a single art. Not all kata methods are the same, nor are the omote / ura models all the same and for certain not the way aiki arts are taught compared to koryu.
But that said you can go back to the debate
Whether or not Ukemi is anything more than a pre-conditioned response- and the possibility that without it much of which is -Aikido as technique- will simply not work
Whether designing an "ukemi model by indoctrination" by forcing newbies to watch and learn how they were expected to receive, has any real merit in a martial art, or it just makes the model work in isolation.
And whether or not all of those explanations and detailed treatises on "the wisdom of fitting-in to a defense offered" from a teacher has ever really been "wise" at all; on any day, by any standard.
It's all good, it's all fascinating. As far as I am concerned --they- did a fairly good job of teaching both outsiders and insiders to never believe what they say at face value. Further, that by implication we would be fools for doing so. Oddly enough, the realization of having to "steal it" seems to fit the profile of being lied to about it in the first place. Makes Tatemae / hone …fit Omote and Ura quite well.
Me, I just like being honest and see people teaching and telling people where its going…with details. And oddly enough I was taught that
and have seen that
by teachers in the Japanese arts-both in Aikido and Koryu who hated the Japanese model…
or maybe they were just "winking" when they said that.