My past comes back to haunt me.
And I could have written better, because in "flowing" from one sentence to another, I gave an impression that the young shihan at the Yoshinkan said Shioda had met behind closed doors. In fact, properly:
1. The young shihan confirmed (2nd hand) that everyone knew of one contact
2. As for the ten or more trainings, that was me reiterating what I'd heard.
Which was irresponsible of me, because it gives the impression that he was also confirming the "closed-door" ten or more sessions.
He also suggested - and I should have included - that there was no relationship with Yoshinkan and Daito-ryu and that if I wanted to know about Daito-ryu, I should check Kondo Katsuyuki, either by DVD or in person to see what Daito-ryu was like. I should have included this too, because it indicates that this particular young shihan (and perhaps others) were not familiar with the really significant differences between the Kodokai and Kondo's methodology.
I've addressed the public "discomfiture" issue in my essay.
This post illustrates, I must confess, how one's ideological stance - one's current belief's - can skew research, if only slightly.
The rest of the post is "moving" in the right direction. And here's the direction I am moving - one thing I've really been fascinated with is how Ueshiba's leading students are so different. Next month, I'll be posting an IHTBF column on Kobayashi HIrokazu, one of Ueshiba's leading postwar students. I will not take away the import of the essay to note this: Kobayashi's technique, which he learned, as far as anyone knows, directly from Ueshiba, sounds very much - very much - like that of the Kodokai. (I've been searching for this quotation again for awhile, but I read that Takeda Tokimune, upon observing Kobayashi, said to him something to the effect of: "This is real Daito-ryu. Not many people are doing real Daito-ryu these days." Whatever Ueshiba himself did - I still think he used each of his leading disciples as a kind of "crash-test dummy" to really work through different aspects of what he learned and discovered.
And that is one reason I think we can be too quick to assume, when one or another shihan, seems so different from others - or from the few films of Ueshiba - that Ueshiba "couldn't have taught him that." Ueshiba's compatriots - fellow students of Takeda - seem to have mastered their own style - as evidenced by how their disciples attempt to follow in their footsteps - whereas Ueshiba's disciples each seem to have been given and followed a somewhat different path.