Quote:
|
Mike Sigman wrote:
This always assumes that a "competent master" never had any dumb students, inept students, or student whom he didn't show much to. What I just said is know as the bane of most "lineage" claims.
|
But your saying it assumes that others can't recognize that fact. So you're passing on the crumbs as you say Cady is doing and its another example of a kind of distortion that you use to "weaken" a statement that disadvantages you.
The point is not that a competent master can't have unworthy students but that even a worthy "student" will not learn properly unless he first gets the basics from a competent master who really understands the whole picture where a given art is concerned.
The fact that one learned whatever he knows from a great master of an art does not mean that that person is a great master, himself, but if a talented person learned what he knows of an art from people who are, at best, mediocre in that art, then can he really claim to understand the art better?
It may be that weak students of great masters are the bane of "lineage," but how can one really comment on "what Ueshiba did" when he never really knew anyone who really knew Ueshiba?
In other words, just because there may be many weak students in a lineage it doesn't mean that someone outside that lineage really has a better understanding of it.
Regards.
David