Morihei's changing picture.

From an interview with Stanley Pranin, premier researcher of the life of Ueshiba, right here on Aikiweb

When asked about Ueshiba reportedly studying a lot of other koryu arts outside of Daito-ryu he stated: I would say that that's not true. You have this very brief stint in Tenjin Shinryo Ryu, (about three or four month's total) Some training in Yagyu Ryu jujutsu (which was a couple of hundred miles away and he had to go up by ferry! Again, maybe he went up three, four, or a half a dozen times) A smattering of judo (under a seventeen year old Shodan) And then Daito-ryu. (for over twenty years) That's it. The impression that he studied many different arts other than Daito-ryu and mastered them is completely false.

His Daito ryu training spanned over twenty years before he left Takeda. No other training he ever did outside of Daito ryu equaled a tenth of that time.
Let's still take everyone's opinions and throw them in the mix. Throw in all the exaggerations and flat out fabrications. Then examine them in light of Ueshiba's own actions and choices.
After all his supposed mastery of all these Japanese arts
On the day that he chose to hang a shingle
On the day he chose to teach
He chose to teach Daito ryu
And for the next sixteen years, that is exactly what he did and awarded scrolls.

This is a critical point
He did not teach Yagyu, he did not teach anything that even remotely looked like Koryu jujutsu. He did not teach Judo. Takeda appears in his dojo frequently. The uniqueness was never there (yet). What he did was instantly recognized by anyone who had ever seen Takeda.
It was Takeda who was the unique one at that point.
Over time Ueshiba did change the expression of the art-(in ways I admire and truly were unique)
Yes he did continue to grow
Yes he did chose to separate from Takeda
But he never...left aiki.

The first signs of revising history were done by Ueshiba's own hand and not his sons
The mid thirties to prewar were a remarkable period of growth for him. It was during this time that we first hear of him starting to explore changing the name of his art. Several names were considered Aoi-ryu (a family art he claimed) Aiki budo (the name that stuck the longest) even something as simple as aikijutsu (which SHioda says was used for a few years)
Also during this time he started to erase the name of Daito ryu from the Daito ryu Hiden Mokuroku he was issuing. These were photographed by Stan Pranin and are irrefutable. So here he was issuing the scrolls of another art, another mans work, and putting his own arts name on them. This is pretty interesting as it reveals his own mindset; a sense of ownership of this art he was doing. I have searched for any hint of the relationship between he and Takeda to substantiate or ground this unique and entitled action. At first glance an outside viewer could consider it simple fraud. But is it that simple?
In order to understand how or why it might have felt he had the freedom to so such a thing we need only to look at Ueshiba's peers in Daito ryu. Daito ryu is highly unique and odd when compared to a koryu. It claims it is one, but bears little resemblance to the way a koryu is transmitted.
*Koryu have soke and a provable pedogogy / Daito ryu has neither. Takeda never claimed such a role and never proved a lineage or even something as simple as pre-existing scrolls.
*Koryu have a standardization of waza/ Daito ryu has none. The five major schools share no consistency in numbered waza, 1,2,3 etc. They share a look, a certain method.
*The scolls are not consistent. The number of scrolls awarded continued to increase during his life time.
The result of this lack of standardization produced some interesting results. And this is where we find Ueshiba's sense of freedom Ueshiba shared with his peers;
Sagawa-the most senior of Ueshiba's peers who was never issued a Menkyo, created his own syllabus for his art, different from others.
Kodo, the next most senior was issued a Menkyo in Daito ryu Aikijujutsu but it was signed by Takeda's son. Who himself developed his own system.
The Takumakai has a unique set of waza from both Taked and Ueshiba and Hisa was the only one awarded a Menkyo signed by Takeda Sokaku…the not Soke, Soke!
Tokimune Takeda developed something outside of Daito ryu aikijujutsu. He called it Daito ryu Aikibudo and declared himself soke of that. He then awarded ranks in both it and Daito ryu aikijujtsu as the not Soke, Soke of one, and as the Soke of his own creation!!
This certainly left Ueshiba to most likely feel the same sense of independence and freedom from this lack of consistency of transmission and ever changing syllabus among his peers.

In any event, at the end of a process of growth, he in fact did change things to make a creation of his own. To address some posts in this thread, it most certainly shares little if anything to koryu jujutsu and koryu weapons. To most well educated in Japanese bujutsu it is yet another Daito ryu look alike just like his peers. Though each share their own take-Ueshiba's is the most substantially different.

Aiki
1. It is absolutely fair to say the Morihei Ueshiba talked about aiki to the day he died.
2. Curiously, he never mentioned Aiki until after Takeda's long 6 month stay with him in Ayabe in 1922. A visit which so impressed Deguchi that he asked Takeda to change the name of his art to AIKI-jujutsu.
3. It was after this visit that Ueshiba was allowed to teach and in Ueshiba's own words (quoted by Kisshomaru while leaving out the source of his aiki-DR) he believed he had the first of his epiphanies; he recalled the wonder of aiki, how it was everything, and how it informed his faith and not the other way around, how aiki could change the world.
4. Aiki, aiki, aiki. There was nothing in his life, before, during or since, that gave him aiki but Daito ryu. No other art, no other source we know of.
5. His aiki by his own admission was the driver behind everything he did till the day he died.
6. We assume that he grew in it. That he continued to learn and train himself. He was researching and growing. It is a reasonable assumption-particularly based on what he was later quoting, but again, all he chose to speak of was...Aiki, from the time in 1922 (same year as the picture) when he was taught it and allowed to teach aiki-jujutsu.

The best quote to summarize the rewrite of his own training history in Daito ryu- from student to teacher- now totaling over twenty three years was from his son:
When asked about Daito ryu in an interview once, he said
"Yes, he did Daito ryu too."

Spin, Chris?
Reducing the various things the Aikikai has done in their re-write of history to reduce the impact of DR on Ueshiba to just....spin is the greatest use of spin I can think of! ,
Dan

Dan Harden wrote: Spin, Chris? Reducing the various things the Aikikai has done in their re-write of history to reduce the impact of DR on Ueshiba to just....spin is the greatest use of spin I can think of! , Dan

Well, being nice (or maybe charitable) of course .

It's a mixed bag - there were cases of outright falsehood - as evidenced in the photo series. There were cases of omission, such as in the case of Tohei, who was gradually (and not so gradually) "erased" from the official history of the Aikikai. And then there was the "spin" that surrounds all the rest.

Play nice now .

Best,

Chris

Too much significance me thinks. It's called editing. It's happened with all books ever printed in the history of printing. (or 90 something percent)

Thus normal.

There is hidden in plain sight yet there is also adding what isn't there.

Why complain about something you or I would do ourselves, edit.

Regards.G.

Graham Christian wrote: Why complain about something you or I would do ourselves, edit. Regards.G.

I'm not complaining about something I would do.
I would never do what they did, nor rationalize it for them later.

Dan

Graham Christian wrote: Too much significance me thinks. It's called editing. It's happened with all books ever printed in the history of printing. (or 90 something percent) Thus normal. There is hidden in plain sight yet there is also adding what isn't there. Why complain about something you or I would do ourselves, edit. Regards.G.

So...you're saying that it's normal to alter photographs in an historical work?

Best,

Chris

Just because it should be highlighted every once in awhile - not that, unfortunately, we won't go over the same ground again and again. For those who want to argue otherwise, John Driscoll's meticulous comparison of Daito-ryu and Aikido techniques - showing an almost one-to-one correspondence between the two, with the exception of aikido koshinage (which, in another column, John almost surely establishes, is the single and only technique that Ueshiba derived from his earlier brief studies in Yagyu Shingan-ryu).

Ellis Amdur

Ellis Amdur wrote: Just because it should be highlighted every once in awhile - not that, unfortunately, we won't go over the same ground again and again. For those who want to argue otherwise, John Driscoll's meticulous comparison of Daito-ryu and Aikido techniques - showing an almost one-to-one correspondence between the two, with the exception of aikido koshinage (which, in another column, John almost surely establishes, is the single and only technique that Ueshiba derived from his earlier brief studies in Yagyu Shingan-ryu). Ellis Amdur

While agreeing with most of the above, I continue to assert that there is also evidence in Saotome's jo, particularly the piece sometimes referred to within his organization as the "pre-set," for a line of derivation from Yagyu Shingan-ryu for some of the aikijo attributed to Ueshiba. Timestamp 2:58-3:27 at this Youtube URL evidencing blatant copyright infringement. I also note that the oral history associated with this set has always claimed its origins in bojutsu.

Compare with this example of Goto-ha Yagyu Shingan Ryu bojutsu

I am not asserting that the derivation as shown in the videos referenced above is point for point, clear, complete, or equivalent in rigor of execution. But the visual evidence of derivation remains compelling to my eye, notwithstanding the longstanding assertions of others to the contrary.

YMMV.

Best,

FL

Christopher Li wrote: So...you're saying that it's normal to alter photographs in an historical work? Best, Chris

No, you just said that. You are saying it's a historical work like there's some super significance on historical.

Everything ever written is historical, done in the past.

I am saying understand. All editing is altering something and making it different, that's what it is. Understanding that's normal and why that would be normal is what you have to understand first.

Thinking things shouldn't be changed as a historian is a false way of thinking as far as I'm concerned.

The historian who first understands and therefore Expects it is the sensible and reasonable one. For he knows it's normal and thus doesn't get all paranoid and think it's for surruptitious reasons.

I say quite categorically that you or Dan would do the same because I know it's normal. Therefore I know that you would do it, not for sneaky reasons or to fool people but for normal reasons.

As I said, all works have been edited, even the separate editions have certain alterations.

It's understandable.

Now when I come to a change that is not understandable then I would enquire if I'm that interested, but it's understandable that there should be and will be.

Altering a historical work sounds very impressive and wrong but is a silly thing to say.

Regards.G.

Dan Harden wrote: I'm not complaining about something I would do. I would never do what they did, nor rationalize it for them later. Dan

I think you are. I'll explain and 'make up' a similar circumstance so that you can see where I am coming from.

Let's say you give your way of doing things a name. Aikiryu. People doing Aikido come and learn your way of Aiki, your methods of learning etc and you even write a book on it.

Now, because you at the moment travel around or for whatever reason, it doesn't matter really, teach in all manner of places and there are pictures of this in your book doesn't really matter.

Now the editor notices that in one of the pictures it has in the background a sign saying judo. Well he thinks and you agree that may give a confusing idea to some so you edit it out.

After the book has been successful and the way of studying Aiki has become more popular then it is noted that a lot of readers have been asking questions about another sybolic something in the background which leads them to think of some other connection. So in the next edition that is edited out for it's been leading people to think the wrong things.

Later after that edition it is noted that your art is respectful of all martial arts and thus can be practiced by all martial arts and helps those arts actually get better as themselves. So in this third edition the judo sign is put back in in the background.

Simple. It's what happens, it's normal.

Good historians should know this. Therefore those who tell me they were so shocked and surprised that something had been changed shows me they are not as good as they think they are. They should expect it.

Tell me this, if you had a book that was widely read and popular and then after it's second edition it is discovered that the fellow in the picture next to you in a group photo, representing the art was found to be a mass murderer, would you have it edited out of the next edition? Or would you leave it in for 'historical' reasons.

Regards.G.

Graham Christian wrote: Altering a historical work sounds very impressive and wrong but is a silly thing to say. Regards.G.

Okay, let's try a less "silly" thing. Is altering a picture in an article or a book usually considered a part of normal editing?

Editing happens in all books, but that doesn't mean that all editing is honest or ethical.

Best,

Chris

Christopher Li wrote: Okay, let's try a less "silly" thing. Is altering a picture in an article or a book usually considered a part of normal editing? Editing happens in all books, but that doesn't mean that all editing is honest or ethical. Best, Chris

Of course it's normal. Nowadays it's widespread. Pictures are altered more than words. Airbrushing etc. etc.

It's not down to the fact it's done, as I said it's done all the time and now even more so.

Political photos, t'v you name it. It's obvious. The why is so simple I fail to see how anyone could not be aware of it.

The image, the impression the person, the company, the group, whoever wants to project.

Anything that doesn't project that precise image is edited out.

Regards.G.

Christopher Li wrote: Okay, let's try a less "silly" thing. Is altering a picture in an article or a book usually considered a part of normal editing? Editing happens in all books, but that doesn't mean that all editing is honest or ethical. Best, Chris

Secondly, the point you now agree with, that it happens in all books doesn't mean it's ethical or honest I agree with.

But it doesn't mean that because it's done it's for unethical or dishonest reasons either.

99% of the time I would say it's so so simple as to why it's done. A promotional picture of a mercedes wants to show it is a unique thing. Any reference to any other car in the background would thus be edited out.

Add to that public perception changing over time then if public perception changes to red cars are now out of vogue then the next promotional picture of that car will change from red to some other more in vogue colour.

Standard proceedure.

Regards.G.

Graham Christian wrote: Of course it's normal. Nowadays it's widespread. Pictures are altered more than words. Airbrushing etc. etc. It's not down to the fact it's done, as I said it's done all the time and now even more so. Political photos, t'v you name it. It's obvious. The why is so simple I fail to see how anyone could not be aware of it. The image, the impression the person, the company, the group, whoever wants to project. Anything that doesn't project that precise image is edited out. Regards.G.

Certain types of publications, sure, but not in others, not without problems when it's discovered. Let's not be cute here - the Aikikai lied and got caught. Saying that "everybody does it" doesn't excuse it.

Best,

Chris

Christopher Li wrote: Certain types of publications, sure, but not in others, not without problems when it's discovered. Let's not be cute here - the Aikikai lied and got caught. Saying that "everybody does it" doesn't excuse it. Best, Chris

No, not certain types. All. So saying certain types but not in others is you being cute not me.

Lying about the reason may be a point to investigate, yes. Again even if the reason given is a lie then even that has to be understood properly before making assertions.

The answers are usually stupid when found based on someones stupid view. No big plot.

Regards.G.

Graham Christian wrote: Of course it's normal. Nowadays it's widespread. Pictures are altered more than words. Airbrushing etc. etc. It's not down to the fact it's done, as I said it's done all the time and now even more so. Political photos, t'v you name it. It's obvious. The why is so simple I fail to see how anyone could not be aware of it.

This is why there is a line between fiction and non-fiction.

Altering photos that purport to be accurate representations of actual events is emphatically NOT "normal." Any reputable news organization will fire people who do it.

Advertising photos, in contrast, exploit all the tools of the photographer's art -- electronic or not -- to present a very carefully manicured image.

For this reason, it's important to be clear about whether a particular image purports to be a historical record or not. Is it your position that publications officially approved by the Aikikai are advertising materials, are seen as such by the Aikikai, and should be interpreted as such by the aikido community?

Katherine

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: This is why there is a line between fiction and non-fiction. Altering photos that purport to be accurate representations of actual events is emphatically NOT "normal." Any reputable news organization will fire people who do it. Advertising photos, in contrast, exploit all the tools of the photographer's art -- electronic or not -- to present a very carefully manicured image. For this reason, it's important to be clear about whether a particular image purports to be a historical record or not. Is it your position that publications officially approved by the Aikikai are advertising materials, are seen as such by the Aikikai, and should be interpreted as such by the aikido community? Katherine

First reality. The viewpoint of promotions has to be understood. The viewpoint of public relations. Understand these viewpoints before progressing any further in any discussion here, or thoughts about it.

Second reality. The Aikikai is an organization, a business.

Third reality. Protions and pr are in charge of images, perceptions given to fit. Historical is not a factor.

A picture cannot thus purport to be an historical record, that's an impossibility no matter what it's given as.

Any historical record is monitored and edited by the pr of the company. Those in pr not doing that job are the ones sacked not others.

An Historical record would have to be done by a separate body with no connections for or against the organization.

So yes, it's obvious to me they are all advertising materiels and should be seen as such by the aikido community.

Regards.G.

Graham Christian wrote: So yes, it's obvious to me they are all advertising materiels and should be seen as such by the aikido community. Regards.G.

You're right, they should be - but that's not how they were or are represented, and that's part of the lie. Saying, that it's so obvious that everyone ought to have realized that anyway doesn't justify it.

Best,

Chris

Christopher Li wrote: You're right, they should be - but that's not how they were or are represented, and that's part of the lie. Saying, that it's so obvious that everyone ought to have realized that anyway doesn't justify it. Best, Chris

I'm not justifying it. Im showing it's normal and understandable. I am thus saying that those who think or believe it's not are deluded.

If you believe an organization should or does give a 100% or even 90% acurate historical record then you have a false belief and thus keeping that belief makes you deluded and surprised and upset by it.

Regards.G.

Graham Christian wrote: I'm not justifying it. Im showing it's normal and understandable. I am thus saying that those who think or believe it's not are deluded. If you believe an organization should or does give a 100% or even 90% acurate historical record then you have a false belief and thus keeping that belief makes you deluded and surprised and upset by it. Regards.G.

It's not just an abstract "organization" - it's people that you've known as friends and teachers for years who lied to your face and in writing.

Now, maybe believing that everyone your know is lying to you by default keeps you from being "deluded and upset" - but it's no way to live, in my book.

Best,

Chris

Graham Christian wrote: If you believe an organization should or does give a 100% or even 90% acurate historical record then you have a false belief and thus keeping that belief makes you deluded and surprised and upset by it. Regards.G.

Graham
Is not Aikido as put forth by the Aikikai a product and should we not expect truth in product labeling much as we do with anything we buy off the shelf? I understand the buyer beware approach and that we all should be looking hard at what we "buy" though I think that changing photos in this instance is an effort to mislead and to disassociate from the past where it is very likely we would never have the resources to find it on our own. In the political world it doesn't take many "altered" photos to get one on the outside. Should we expect less from an organization that is suppose to be the avatar of a product that is based on love, world peace and whose practice is spiritual in nature?

Just go straight.......
Gary

Christopher Li wrote: It's not just an abstract "organization" - it's people that you've known as friends and teachers for years who lied to your face and in writing. Now, maybe believing that everyone your know is lying to you by default keeps you from being "deluded and upset" - but it's no way to live, in my book. Best, Chris

I quite agree. In fact I fully agree.

However, I do understand. Imagine board meetings. What to say about certain topics is jointly agreed and thus the situation you describe. Not optimum but real, worldwide and considered normal.

Thus I conclude that either a) the subject of pr itself is not a complete or optimum subject as yet. It would have to be studied as a subject in itself and changed for these situations not to occur.

or b) That all people in the world so to speak should be made aware of that when it comes to historical record then the only place to look is in historical research done by those with no connection to the organization or opposing ones so to speak.

In other words I in a way lay the responsibility solely on the shoulders of historians themselves. They should be completely neutral, devoid of any allegiance or even belief that an organization should be giving detailed and correct data. That's not it's job. It's the job of the historian.

When the public knows this, when the companies know this, then there would be more harmony and less delusion. For the companies would feel relieved, knowing they were only expected to give a general outline and the public would be happy because they know they have a choice and what they are getting and from where.

Understanding what I say here as part b) I think is the correct answer for it leads to seeing what's hiidden in plain sight.

Even in life, be honest, when asking about something, anything, you don't expect an in depth account. No, you expect an outline good enough to give you an orientation.

You also know that if you want to know all the ins and outs then it is your responsibility to go to another place where you can find a specialized text on the subject and do an in depth study yourself.

We know this, it's normal and indeed natural.

Even those 'friends' of yours who lied believed in the same system you did so felt it as responsible to bear the not telling you the truth. Yes, they see it as a burden they have to carry, a responsibility.

The system is at fault. Belief in it is at fault. We all are at fault.

Regards.G.

Graham Christian wrote: Any historical record is monitored and edited by the pr of the company. Those in pr not doing that job are the ones sacked not others. An Historical record would have to be done by a separate body with no connections for or against the organization.

Depends on the history and the organization. For example, technology companies generally keep very good, accurate historical records. Why? Because those records support their patent claims, which are fundamental to the marketability of their products. Materially editing a laboratory notebook, or an image of people present at a meeting, would be a firing offense in most cases.

While the two terms are often used interchangeably, there actually is a very real difference between spin and outright lying. It's a PR person's job to assemble a narrative, to emphasize or de-emphasize events so as to portray their client in the best possible light. Fine. That's spin. But a PR person who is caught in an out and out lie -- say, by presenting multiple versions of the same image -- cannot represent their client effectively. By being demonstrably untrustworthy, they invite close scrutiny of every aspect of the narrative they're trying to assemble. As has in fact happened in this case.

Put another way:
Whenever possible, tell the truth. It's easier to remember!

Katherine

Gary Welborn wrote: Graham Is not Aikido as put forth by the Aikikai a product and should we not expect truth in product labeling much as we do with anything we buy off the shelf? I understand the buyer beware approach and that we all should be looking hard at what we "buy" though I think that changing photos in this instance is an effort to mislead and to disassociate from the past where it is very likely we would never have the resources to find it on our own. In the political world it doesn't take many "altered" photos to get one on the outside. Should we expect less from an organization that is suppose to be the avatar of a product that is based on love, world peace and whose practice is spiritual in nature? Just go straight....... Gary

Well it can be only one of two things: a product or a service.

Food on shelves? Not a good example for if you believe you are told anything near the truth there then you are certainly deluded.

Now expecting more from an organization which is meant to be an avatar of love, world peace and spiritual in nature then I agree with you, we should expect more.

However the example I give above as to best solution I doubt they have ever considered. If they did and understood how that would benefit all concerned, including them, then they could adopt it and be the first on the planet to so do. Thus lead the way.

Thus they would have to take responsibility. They would have to Allow, agree with, an official body to set up, not of their choosing, to represent the historical record of Aikido.

They would have no influence or control of such a body. That does not mean no communication.

Then they could get on with showing what they do as their pr and promotions and referring anyone interested in historical record to this other body.

Much more ethical, harmonious and responsible I would say. Of course in their write ups and promotions they would have brief explanations and a brief historical outline but thats all they need. They are meant to be promoting what they offer not what once was.

The responsibility there then is just them making sure such a place exists for those who do want to know the in depth history.

Regards.G.

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: Depends on the history and the organization. For example, technology companies generally keep very good, accurate historical records. Why? Because those records support their patent claims, which are fundamental to the marketability of their products. Materially editing a laboratory notebook, or an image of people present at a meeting, would be a firing offense in most cases. While the two terms are often used interchangeably, there actually is a very real difference between spin and outright lying. It's a PR person's job to assemble a narrative, to emphasize or de-emphasize events so as to portray their client in the best possible light. Fine. That's spin. But a PR person who is caught in an out and out lie -- say, by presenting multiple versions of the same image -- cannot represent their client effectively. By being demonstrably untrustworthy, they invite close scrutiny of every aspect of the narrative they're trying to assemble. As has in fact happened in this case. Put another way: Whenever possible, tell the truth. It's easier to remember! Katherine

The outline of new better way still fits. The example you give is based solely on the fact that some organizations have a need for precise records of events etc. Good, so be it, but that would come under records, internal records. It would contain all data necesssary for their internal purposes.

A body outside of them which dealt sole in Historical record of the company or activity would have different information, some the same, but purpose different thus a different animal.

Thus they could direct anyone interested in them purely from an historical viewpoint to this outside body.

Thus their pr and promotions would solely be on what they produce now, offer now, all about now.

They shouldn't be involved in or responsible for explaining their history in detail, it's not their job

If you were self emloyed or run a small business you naturally expect to be asked about your products or services, quantity, quality etc. You naturally need internal records for various reasons but they are not history of the organization.

If all or even lots of people kept bombarding you with questions about the history of your business and then still wern't satisfied, they want in depth, in order, in sequence, every detail then you would wonder what's going on.

That's a historians job. Are you one? Do you employ one? No, and neither should you.

History and historical record is not a company or organizions responsibility. It's a publics responsibility. Hence librarys and things.

Any company or government or body employing a historian is not using them to find out their own history are they? No, it's because they want to know the history of something else.

Such are my thoughts.

Regards. G.

Graham Christian wrote: That's a historians job. Are you one? Do you employ one? No, and neither should you. History and historical record is not a company or organizions responsibility. It's a publics responsibility. Hence librarys and things.

Where do you think historians get their material? Exclusively from other, disinterested historians who happened to be on site, sans prejudice or ignorance, to take an "objective" photo? One big reason that civilization is so powerful is because it enables people to pursue specialties. But civilization works best to the extent that everyone does their best in all aspects of their lives. Honest representation ups the signal/noise ratio for everyone, including historians.
Yes, this kind of analog Photoshop is, and always has been, commonplace. Memoirs are famously -- almost universally -- distorted versions of reality. People are always tempted to show things as they wish they would be, and they often succumb to that temptation. So Mr. Harden's Looking Aghast is distinctly overblown, but I'm all for holding people, including my near-infallible self, to high standards.
As for what the doctoring of that photo might represent spiritually or psychologically, it looks to me like a clear case of individuation on the part of a talented disciple, someone, in this case, with a deeply religious inclination who somehow got apprenticed to someone deeply paranoid, and scarred by a violent childhood. Not a recipe for long-term compatibility.
I expect it would be difficult to determine when Ueshiba began altering and revising the techniques of Daito Ryu, but at some point it became reasonable to call it a distinct art, yes? It's kind of like the Anglican and Catholic churches; based on the same tenets, but deeply diverged, and essentially irreconcilable.
So, shame on whoever for using this individuation process as an excuse to mess with history, with the wellsprings of the Art, if only because doing so led, so many years later, to this now-tedious discussion. But maybe we can make good use of the incident, as a way to focus on the ways that the two arts differ, and thus get a better idea of their natures, and ours.