I have to apologise, I am not used to this forum stuff, and getting what I intend or attempt to say down clearly hasn’t been easy, I am a kinaesthetic learner, not an intellectual giant,
Anyway, trying to be clearer....
The question begs to be asked, why did Ueshiba not see it as paramount to pass on the Aiki that he learnt from Takeda?
As I have seen stated elsewhere on other threads by Dan, Takeda passed it on to more than Ueshiba, as Sugawa shows. But O'Sensei chose not to pass it on after the war it seems. Why not? Once again, perhaps he surpassed that in both technique and spirit.
And if it was only taught before the foundation of Aikido, why bring it back into Aikido at all? Because the prewar students could do it?
And why choose Tohei, a man that didn’t study Aiki as his tenth Dan technical director?
What changed in the founder during and after the war? I think there was evidence that he taught different things before the war, as can be seen by Shirata and Shioda both being able to represent internal power from the Daito Ryu syllabus but that wasn’t Aikido, at that time, that was Aiki budo, or Aiki jujitsu, or whatever the founder called it before the war, before the creation of Aikido. Before Iwama.
To say that there was even prewar Aikido is an oxymoron, as Aikido was established after the war.
So if you want to study Aiki budo or Aiki jujitsu or Daito Ryu, why study Aikido at all?
And speaking of Iwama, and once again, presenting to you a valid alternative to an explanation of O'Sensei's teachings, what I love about this model is it was written by a student of Saito, through the study of the text budo, so an Iwama student explaining the origin of the founders Aikido through the eyes of someone that studied at the founding place of Aikido, http://www.aikidotakemusu.org/en/rubriques/163
I have heard Sensei say that as he sat at the founders bedside whilst he was dying he lamented that no one was actually following his Aikido, no one was following the path he set out. If that was true, and the path was IP, then did he forget he gave Shioda his 9th Dan in his Aiki, or did he forget he had taught these things to Shirata as well.
Or once again. Was he lamenting that no one actually got what he really wanted them to get.
In all of the replies to this thread, none of the questions stated above have been adequately answered, isn’t the above case(Aikido Takemusu) just as valid an explanation of the founders Aikido? And why isn’t Henry Kono’s explanation of Yin and yang a good enough explanation of what the founder was doing in regards to his Aikido at the very end of his life. After all it was in Henry’s ear he whispered “you don’t understand In/Yo”, and Henry that actually interpreted this version based on how the founders Aikido felt at that time, what he was doing that was different to the other students and instructors at Hombu.
And if so, aren’t the techniques of Aikido, designed if trained with the proper intent, enough to build an Aiki body? To understand his thinking after the war? After Iwama?
I stand strongly by my claim that your technique needs to be valid, not just in the Dojo. And that anyone that thinks that training in a controlled environment understands how their mind will react when under real duress and how there body will respond is dreaming. As I said earlier, if all those doing Aiki want it valid as more than just a Dojo trick, then this has to be experienced. After all those prewar Aiki budo boys had one definite thing in common, they faced all challengers, and didn’t lose, whatever they had they had it tested. Can we say as much?