Walker

I've been out of town and am late to the party so belated thanks to the Professor for an in depth treatment of Ellis' book.

I think it is shown in Ellis' book and Mike really has a point when he says above, "One of the interesting things I found, as my own skills progressed... was that even though Kisshomaru Ueshiba was sparse in his descriptions, they're actually pretty accurate and reflect some knowledge of ki skills and how they work."

There are several things that could be highlighted in the above statement, but the first is the strange effect of retrospect when looking at information about these skills and knowledge. "One of the interesting things I found as my own skills progressed..." That is the crux of it. One could have read Kisshomaru's descriptions for any length of time, but until "one's own skills progress" they are meaningless.

I think Gurdjieff told Ouspenski that if he had truly understood what he had written in his own book there would be no need for Gurdjieff to teach him.

On Mike's question about "ki" in the aikikai after Tohei: It has always been my impression since my early days training in the 80s (ie. before the internet when hearsay and oral culture was king) that "ki" curriculum was tainted because of its association with Tohei. My impression was very strong that "ki" was Tohei and so out it went with Tohei no matter its utility or lack thereof.