DH

Ueshiba now knew and Takeda didn't?
This is qualified just how?
Previous discussions stated Ueshiba moved forward into a deeper study that Takeda didn't know. That was never qualified either -even though asked over and over.
A certain fellow forwarded that the source for Takeda's aiki (as stated by Takeda himself) was Chinese.

Marks arguments about the Japanese aiki arts being a shift-holds true regardless of the source of the Internal aspects.
Takeda's arts were a significant shift from traditional koryu jujutsu, and many Koryu people trained under him for that reason. His "aiki" approach -as demonstrated in a collection of forms seen across the five branches- were dramatically different from the standard jujutsu (not saying good or bad, here). To say otherwise expresses an ignorance of the subject at hand. This was the reason the committee approving the demonstrations at embu noted UEshiba's stuff did not fit. So they had the categories listed as:
Koryu
Gendai
Aiki-do
It is more than fair to say that the aiki arts in Japan (as opposed to the idea of aiki) began with Takeda.
Takeda, Sagawa, Ueshiba, Kodo, and Hisa were also markedly different from what we do know. The arguments about Yoshin and Kito ryu do not have enough demonstrable evidence to make them as clear. The aiki arts were not the same as use of aiki in an otherwise koryu context. They were clear and were dramatic enough to make them a movement in and of themselves as a stand apart approach to jujutsu in their day.

Beyond that repeatedly stating that Ueshiba quoted the classics and Takeda did not is inane and a strawman argument in itself. Little is known about what Takeda said or didn't say, but of the things we do know and are discussed by different branches, there was heaven/ earth/ man, In yo ho, breath power use of the Kua/ mingmen and dantian, discussions of connection and intent (though not expressed in those same terms by either men). It is fair to say that those things are universal and preceded Takeda, but it also demonstrates Takeda's knowledge of them.

I have met DR and Koryu people who were trained in and demonstrated physical skills that they had no clue preceded their arts. They were amused to find out the Chinese terminology for the way they used their bodies. While they were acussed of using "buzzwords" from another culture, they actually had a fairly good handle on using their bodies as judged by some experts in the field. That again does make the case for the overall existence of these skills in the broader sense in China and elsewhere. If someone is going to argue for that...they need to address and ackowledge the skills demonstrated by some in the Japanese arts.

I guess I am saying that while both arguments have solid points, there isn't enough information about Takeda to make any serious argument for what he did or didn't know, or what he might have said to his students. It's only speculation.
Case in point:
Few I have ever talked with within the art knew about the body method. Who would know that a living DR Shihan has a soft push hands drill meant to demonstrate a body skill and is only done with private advanced students? And if not for Sagawa's book (which he did not want translated to English) people would still be arguing with what I had been saying for decades. IE the admonition not to teach white people, or that most people in the art were not actually being taught the key to making it all work; solo training, even the idea of internal, breath-power methods, the principle of aiki in yo ho and so on. So, having a meaningful discussion (even with those in the art) was sometimes difficult, and other times, ridiculous, and much more so with those outside.

I think that some who enter into these discussions are demonstrating their own prejudices and ignorance while arguing the other side is the one who is prejudiced and ignorant.
So we get to listen to pundants from Chinese arts jabber on about some Japanese arts and characterize the people in them as ignorant and "running away", when in actually there are people with some very good information who will never enter into "how to" discussions about what they know, and all this when their own Chinese teachers rarely talk about details either, and who's adepts even with the information, rarely demonstrate stellar skills.
Kind of funny really.

Dan