Mike Sigman wrote:
**[i]Both Abe Sensei and Tohei had to go to outside sources for the Ki information... why didn't they get it directly from O-Sensei?
Just a thought about this... I tired to think about someone looking at my Aikido at the end of my life and trying to analyse the elements and the sources. I have gotten an immense amount from Ikeda sensei, Tom Read Sensei, Mary Heiny Sensei, William Gleason Sensei, and more recently Ushiro Sensei, Kuroda Sensei and Vladimir Vasiliyev.
Very little of what I got from these teachers was new to me in that I always found that that I got from them simply helped me undretsand something which Saotome Sensei had always been teaching but which I hadn't quite gotten. I think this is very normal. My teacher has a certain way of explaining things and demonstrating them. I have found over the years that changing viewpoints by training with other teachers has been an integral part of really understanding what my own teacher had been telling me all along. So for some person in the future it would be a mistake to say thet I got such and such from Kuroda Sensei and therefore Saotome Sensei wasn't doing it or teaching it. It was integral to both teachers but oen helped me better understand what the other had been doing.
I had this same experience myself on the Aiki Cruise when I spent much of a class working with a young man. After class he introduced me to his Sensei and proceeded to tell his teacher about the insights he had gained from some ideas I had given him while we trained together. His teacher started laughing and said "but that's what I've been telling you all along". I suspect that the same thing happened with the deshi... many looked outside the boundaries of their training with O-Sensei to try to better understand what O-sensei was teaching them. That doesn't mean that what they got from oustide was something O-sensei didn't know or wasn't teaching but his way of demonstrating it wasn't the way that "clicked" for them.