So, um, are you advocating that people do the *wrong* thing in order for them to realize aikido? You have posted a list of things to do before realizing aikido and the very first one is the invasion into "another country". Do you really believe that someone must do the wrong thing before finally realizing aikido?
If you only enter another's space through invitation, but there is no invitation, how do you realize aikido. If you have a psycho who gives no invitation using a knife, does that mean you have no aikido? Or is it that you *can* invade without invitation if it's "self defence"? Which means, again, that you're doing the wrong thing to go beyond to find aikido.
What do you mean by "beyond even that". It's like you've made a grand canyon leap of faith which is based upon faulty premises to arrive at some unknown definition of "aikido".
O.K. Back to this one. As I said looking at it from right and wrong you will not see what I am saying there.
To understand what I mean you would have to read what I wrote on 'three stages of 'Aikido' .
So I could be guilty of bad presentation and assuming people here already know where I'm coming from.
So for your benefit I'll explain further. Ist stage is learning how to harmonize with yourself under pressure ie: whilst being attacked or held etc. 2nd stage is then learning how to harmonize with the force, motion etc, in other words the other and thus handle the other competently. Third stage is going beyond this and not only doing the first two but protecting and making the other feel better as a result of the interraction. To actually improve their condition.
Along this path you start by, in stage one, learning how to remain calm and stable etc whilst being 'invaded' In stage two you are learning that through certain principles you can now actually handle those 'invading' your space. In stage three you learn you have no concerns therefore on self defence and become aware of other principles where you can enter and share and bring about harmony and betterment for that potential enemy and there is no invasion necessary. Thus the words of O'Sensei make sense at that point.
Now back to my style of presentation. I have said I give things that make people think. They make some react, sometimes passionately. However they always have a basic tenet which I see needs inspection. In this case 'invasion'
Why? Because when I see people following a thought like sheep without inspecting it I see the blind following the blind. In this case if you believe in invasion then it would be wise to look at what you are agreeing with by following what sounds 'logical' If you agree with invasion then don't complain when you are invaded would be a very simplistic way of putting it. Thus you would be agreeing with bullying, with rudeness and bad manners, with rape even and burglary for they are all instances of invasion.
Only a misinformed or indeed psychotic person would think this way for it is how they justify their actions by seeing the 'others' as enemies.
There, I have explained my view as best I can. You may agree or disagree or share, it's up to you.