Re: Pre War Aikido, 1930 through Iwama period
I have two questions.
Why is there such a focus on what O'sensei studied pre-war, instead of what he desired to transmit post-war?
I'll give an example (meant to be used purely as context).
In the Bible, there is very little mentioned about the life of Jesus Christ as a child. There is very much written about his transmissions to his disciples up to and through the Crucifiction. That is acceptable with most Christians today; what matters is what was decided to be transmitted, not the man himself.
While I don't mean to compare O'sensei to a religious figure, I believe the analogy is sound.
Bruce Lee studied various martial arts, to include Boxing and Wing Chun. What was created was Jeet Kun Do. Practicioners of this art study Jeet Kun Do to be more proficient at Jeet Kun Do; I don't see Jeet Kun Do practitioners compartmetnalize their training, forcing them to retrace Bruce Lee's training in Wing Chun and Boxing to be better at Jeet Kun Do.
So I come back full circle to O'sensei. It sounds almost as if modern Aikido requires some sort of validation in its historical context in order to define what it is today, instead of accepting the transmisison that was left by the founder.
The next reply I will probably witness will be the fact that O'sensei performed his transmission, yet it was interpreted in at least 5 different ways; hence the major styles we have today.
My second question then, is, what was O'sensei's wish in terms of transmission? He did leave behind writings. Are we studying today what he intended to be studied? There is a difference between different views of the same picture (the sum is greater than the parts), and a student disagreeing with dojo politics, thus breaking away from convention and bastardizing the original concept.
|