Quote:
Peter Rehse wrote:
This really hits the nail on the head. If one works with the assumption that none of his legacy was passed down through any of his students (not just his son) how can anyone possibly reconstruct it.
There is just too much supposition to sustain claim of discovery.
|
I agree that it is difficult, and that the practitioner would always have to present an argument to defend his claim that he is following the "lost legacy"... But I don't agree that it can't be done. And regarding "dead martial art," I think this is a bit different from a koryu being resurrected from scrolls.
1. There are lectures and writings, which have content much like students heard in class. They fit into a larger body of work (besides Mark Murray, see Chris Li's other stuff) that gives them context and support, which can be studied and practiced. In other words he gave pointers to things you can and should train.
2. Unlike a koryu with intricate details, it could be that the founder's "legacy" was for people to learn just a basic and relatively unconstrained method of
"how to move your mind." (wherein the mind affects the body of course.) How else could he feel like giving a dancer 10th dan?
So from that point of view, we have to get the foundation right, and then whatever we build on it is correct aikido as long as it is true to the foundation.
Anyway I am not saying personally I believe in an Ueshiban legacy. I see where one could claim it is there, but it may be too sparsely supported after all. It's up to us to figure out whether our training is congruent with the founder's intentions, to whatever degree we can discern those intentions. So it doesn't have to be a totally clear prescription from him in order to guide our training.