Quote:
Jason Rudolph wrote:
Chris,
I don't want to get into the argument of how much and with who anyone studied. Distill it down to the "product" being presented. This is probably more appropriately directed to those such as Katherine and Phil who are in ASU under Saotome Shihan. However, it could be easily applied to anyone in any Shihan's organization in any martial art. Specifically, if there are serious doubts as to whether or not a teacher (in this case Saotome Shihan) actually learned something (in this case "aiki" as she is defining it but regardless, it is deemed important going on whomever's definition) that a select group of students (Katherine and others) allege was either not learned by the teacher or if learned, not being transmitted, then why stay in his organization? Why continue to take and hold rank from that individual? Its not as if he is the only game in town on the American aikido landscape. There of lots of other choices out there. Wouldn't it make more sense to find a Shihan who one feels does transmit "aiki" as they are defining it?
Train hard,
Jason
|
Sure, and some people do that. But as I said, it's not a yes/no answer as to whether somebody has it or can transmit it. And then you have to consider what the other available choices are.
Also, being in an organization often has little to do with who the head of the organization is. Moriteru and Mitsuteru Ueshiba are fine people - there are people who are certainly more skilled, but I'm still in the Aikikai.
My comments on his training history was to put things in a little context, so it might be clearer why a "student of the Founder" might not have actually gotten everything that Morihei Ueshiba had. That doesn't mean that Saotome or anybody else has nothing, or doesn't have a lot - just that there's a lot more out there to be found.
Best,
Chris