Dan I keep seeing this kind of stuff. I'm not trying to be personal, I'm just pointing out what I see. To me, the way you write sounds like you are trying to win all angles of conversation, while not addressing anything. I'm sorry that it sounds that way to me. I'm not sure what else I can say about that. It's not personal, I'm not trying to be divisive. I'm simply explaining how I see what you're writing.
I'm not trying to insult you.
If you are making a comparison here between Aikido and something else, unless you're talking about a sport Aikido, being an Uke means falling for Nage. If your teacher could not throw you, it was something strange you were doing, and it wasn't Aikido Ukemi. If you are talking about sport martial arts, your "teacher" or "coach" doesn't have to be able to throw you. Most professional (all?) boxers can out box their coaches, that doesn't mean that they know more about boxing then the coach does. Transcending a system doesn't simply mean you can "out play" your teacher. It means developing a method that goes beyond what the system your teacher teaches can do.
I have experience with this myself. I understand the power of this type of training. However, if you could use what you call "aiki" in free styles practice and Ueshiba and Takeda could use what you would call "aiki" in freestyle situations, how is it that you transcended their systems? If you have found a kind of power, superior (transcending) from that used by those who created a system to teach that power, you have your own thing, why call it "aiki"? If you discovered these things outside of a system, why wouldn't you say that you've created your own unique method? If you've created a good way to transmit this power to others (and it sounds like you believe that you have) then why not simply say that you are teaching your own system?
So, you found traditional systems limited. You "transcended" them, yet you still "support" them? So what you are teaching is unique (you've left other systems). If you are teaching something unique, how is it that you "support" other systems? To me it seems the opposite is true, you use other systems to support what you are doing. You created your own thing, then you use the already established martial arts communities to draw people to your unique thing.
Can you see it from my perspective? It seems like you want the best of both worlds. On one hand you want to say that what you are doing in original, better and different. And on the other hand you are saying that what you do is proven by people like Ueshiba and Takeda, and other "aiki" students can gain from what you are teaching, because it's basically the same thing Ueshiba and Takeda were talking about.
Why do you have to be so stubborn? Some people teach the principles (the so called heart of a system) of a given system, and explore those principles in frameworks (of which are formed through historical and cultural context--which is why some people have to go OUTSIDE of the box because often times the framework is not suited for newer demands/challenges in martial movement) that traditional systems do not provide. Doing this does not necessarily mean that the person is negating or denying the validity of the traditional system--how could he if he is using principles that were derived from the traditional system? There need not be a disconnect in your mind--a person can be teaching Ueshiba and Takeda's aiki, and learned the validity and power of it through freestyle sparring with competent fighters, weapons with competent people that can handle weapons, grappling with trained wrestlers--i.e., frameworks that traditional systems do not offer.
Do you also not understand the notion of innovation? It happens all the time--in technology, in pedagogy, in learning methods, in business management, and in...yes...you guessed it, bujutsu. Would you consider that perhaps some people are teaching the same AIKI that ueshiba and takeda taught but finding ways to streamline their methods so that that acquisition and transmission of skill become more efficient? Can you accept these states of affairs?