Peter A Goldsbury
I have been away in Australia, so have not had time to follow the recent contributions to this thread. With respect to Saigo Tanomo, I would like to see the hard evidence about what martial arts he was taught at the Nisshinkan and who taught him, especially the hard evidence that Takeda Soemon taught him. The 会津藩教育考 presents a history of this han school and lists all the teachers, but Takeda's name does not appear.
I wonder how relevant that is, Peter. There were a lot of family arts. Are the family members all listed as members of a ryu?
Takeda stated it was taught to him, he stated it was a secret art. We are being asked to consider all manner of personality traits, latent abnormal tendencies, major phycological issues and serious character flaws. What does this educated forensic study have to say about why he would NOT take credit for something he made up?
Why did he NOT say he invented Daito ryu?
Why did he only call himself the general affairs director and not soke?
Why did he blatently state aiki was taught to him by Tanamo as an indoor art?
Again going back to oshiki-uchi
I have my own opinions about the ridiculous passing off and half ass treatment of oshiki-uchi as weird and improbable when it has very practical underpinnings. Why did this happen? Because the explanation for it by Tokimune (and only Tokimune) was ridiculous. We are left to wonder whether he lied (again with the lies) or he was simply uninformed, misinformed what have you. But no where in the many reviews did someone versed in the traditional Japanese koryu ever even consider the idea of an indoor teaching that was a a secret training to gain power in the arts that had not one thing to do with techniques and weapons but rather -how- to do them with aiki.
Knowing what I know of aiki, it is MORE than possible that this training was a separate training model entirely separate even wholly divorced from...any specific martial discipline and held within the clan or family.
Where do we see a precedent in recent times?
1. Sagawa taught Daito ryu for over sixty years we now know from his own admission the following
a) That he never taught the real truth of aiki until very late in his career.
b) Why? Takeda told him not to
c) What did he say about solo training? Not to talk about it. It was something you did on the side.
2. Tokimune and the Takumakai
We now know that when one of the teachers went to Tokimune he got solo training to create aiki. When he went back to show them, he stated the guys didn't want to do them- they wanted waza. When he went back to Tokimune-Tokimune said "Ya , my guys don't want to do them either."
3. We know that Tokimune, like Takeda openly stated that they were told to only teach one or two people the real art. yet that remains undefined.
4. Modern adepts
Anyone care to go out and feel/test/ examine the 2,000 or so modern practitioners of Daito ryu and see just how many have any real power that is unusual, instant and entrielty separate from any waza? Were you to do so I think you will find that nothing has changed from the above model
5. Yagyu Shingan ryu
We now know from the fellow who taught Ark, that the guys back at the ranch didn't care about learning the body skills. They looked at them as an adjunct to the art.
We see most of the prevous researchers and internet posters only looking for a training model as part of a martial ryu. Here again I go back to Takeda/Ueshiba.
We are being asked...hell we are being TOLD... to consider that Ueshiba- got his own secret or otherwise unknown, unproved, conditioning that was... an adjunct to his martial training
, the likes of which produced no other persons of power, and no other mention,
Clarification: I am not saying whether he did or didn't, I am stating that it is interesting that the idea-totaly unproven was welcomed and embraced while we are being asked to consider that Takeda lied about something which indeed has precedent-a separate teaching held within the clan or family as an indoor teaching.
I recognize, some of these ideas may seem at odds with modern researchers and how they see the arts. It seems at least possible that Takeda was in fact telling the truth. It is a bit of a curiosity that in so many of the articles we are asked to take Ueshiba at face value, and with Takeda we begin with "Why Takeda probably lied." I would like to at least see some excellent writing, a discerning eye, and some research time spent on;
Why Takeda might have been telling the truth.
Whether it was his state of mind (again the forensic physcology) or his sense of correct morality that would not let him call himself soke?
Maybe he recognized that all of his effort, his exceptional skill, NEVER came from his study of classical weapons but was in owed to his study of aiki, which he was taught.