Re: Saigo Shiro
Interesting reply. I see you are taking this personally as a commentary on you. I am addressing twenty years of dialogue, first addressed by Stan, that to date still does not answer the question! If I wanted to address you personally I would have directly. And yes I am well aware of your comments about Tanamo, as well as the source for them and in my mind that still leaves the question open does it not?.
1. Tanamo could or could not have known something that changed Takeda's game
2. There is no actual evidence that Takeda lied about it?
3.Sagawa and Sato's opinions are inconclusive.
I think my questions were fairly simple. I see no clear answers here.but rather a lot of frustration and anger..
I won't address the Shiro debate because I really don't care. As I said in my post "if you care to beat that dead horse again..."
You continually misread me when I discuss DR. You presume I am stating that ONLY DR has aiki. Because of that point you miss most of what I say..Oddly, no where do I ever state it. Let me throw this out there to help put things in better perspective for you. I believe that LCD has aiki. That assessment was also made of him by two of Sagawa's students who trained with him as well..He thought I was doing Chansi jin from Taiji. So...there ya go. I don't have those prejudices, nor do I give a shit. If I did, I would have had a different course for my life.
So ..try to listen. I am only...only... discussing what Takeda attributes as the source of HIS aiki.
I don't see an agreed upon definition of "aiki" as being relative to the point of Takeda's claims. Can you make a relevant argument for that as well? In fact I could care less what you personally think about aiki. Nor I for that matter. As an investigation I am more concerned with what the subject thought it to be and where he attributed it came from, and what can be proved or disproved of the statement..
When it comes to me, I did read your reply very carefully. I question your need to bring me into the narrative, but hey...go for it, I don't appreciate the "famous teacher comment" either, and you knew I wouldn't. Expediency rarely trumps forethought, Ellis. How about you make your points without me? We're just debating a very narrow point, Do you mind demonstrating for me how drawing me into the narrative makes a compelling argument for Tanamo not giving aiki to him? ..
Since we are second guessing and using interviews and quotes, I will take the summation of what Takeda often discussed when he used the word "aiki" over a throw away singular quote on mind reading. Incidently, there was and is much discussion about what ki does and how it manifests itself spiritually and the effect it has on people. I am not going there, but it is well within the narrative on ki.
That's on him and I consider it to be as relevant and not -discounting as a point of debate- as Ueshiba's quotes on the spiritual aspects that...you...use frequently. They actually match in ways you can even read today with Ushiro's thoughts on Ki..
None of this is so much a right and wrong with me. Why are we taking it that far?
Are you stating you have arrived at or made definitive conclusions on any of these matters? Really?
As for this notion of Mastery and Tanamo having to be a great Martial artist:.
1. Do you suppose that when Sagawa discovered aiki at 17 he considered himself a great master? Do you think he could have turned around and taught it to someone then and there?
2. Do you suppose that when Takeda said "I don't let people watch because what I do is simple enough that people can steal it.." that this was just more budo nonsense?
3. How about there are certain principles and constants that can be taught in a short time frame that then... take decades to master.
Case in point:
A certian Koryu teacher once said he could teach the entire art in a year and half. The student would suck but it would be his. Then...he would take 20 years to absorb it.
There are men who arrive at Menkyo in 8 years of part time training. Others 11, still others 20..
Is there is a reason to discount that idea as an explanation when you seem to embrace so many others?
There are many things that I have found historically problematic about DR and Takeda's story. We have discussed these things at length as well as what I was told about the source of the Makimono as well. I reserved my doubts about certain items based on what I was told, interviews, and how things also stacked up to the "norm," and what he might have done or not done. We should be careful to examine what could have been questionable opposed to stating things were pure fabrications manufactured out of whole cloth.
As for the Japanese Koryu teachers example of truth:
I appreciate the common presumptions of the simple nature of discourse alluding to the person being a simpleton,,juxtaposed to the notion of how your teacher's example makes people seem interesting, complicated, sophisticated and intelligent. I have done business with people like that for decades. Thanks for reminding me why there is a reason I judge my friends with different standards!
Again nowhere do I see anything addressing how Tanamo could or could not have in fact taught him something that changed his game nor why Tanamo had to be some acknowledge MASTER to have it himself.
All the best
Last edited by DH : 01-14-2011 at 12:23 AM.