Wait a minute, both of you. I think you are talking past each other, as so often happens in discussions such as this. I think it is becoming a good discussion, but it might be useful for someone else, not directly involved, to see where you are both going. Timothy Kleinert posed some interesting questions in his post (Post #76) and responding to these would be good.
I have been around for a long time, but the only persons out of all those who Mark cited, whom I myself have met, are Allen Beebe and his own teacher, Rinjiro Shirata. The others are names, well-known names, but names nonetheless and of people I am probably unlikely to meet. So I have to go on what they write in books or in forums such as this. Of course, you can argue that you need to go and 'feel' these people to understand what they are doing -- and thus what they are saying, but this argument is of only limited value, for until this happens -- if it happens, it is still a matter of words in books or discussion forums.
I have never met Mr Gleason, but his name stands out for me, since I have read his books and, more importantly, I was also taught for many years by his own teacher. Mr Judge has the advantage or training in aikido and also in a koryu under the guidance of Dr David Hall, the author of the encyclopedia I discussed earlier. So I think the questions he asks about aiki are different questions from the ones I would ask, for instance. I think this difference in viewpoint has to be recognized and acknowledged -- but this also means that any discussion has to be conducted with a certain care.
Mr Judge asks why it matters whether 'we call these internal power modalities "aiki" or not' and this is an important question. For me, one who practices aikido, it matters because Morihei Ueshiba himself used this term, quite freely, as it happens. However, it is still a moot question for me whether 'these internal power modalities' can be identified with what Morihei Ueshiba called "aiki".
There are several other issues here, one major issue being, 'How would we find out?'
1. One way would be to approach Morihei Ueshiba through his published discourses. I have stated before that these have not been adequately studied, but this lack is now being remedied to some extent. It has to be recognized, however, that Ueshiba's published discourses are difficult to deal with, one reason being for what they take for granted in terms of assumed knowledge, and another reason being the way they were edited and put together. In this connection, the Aikikai itself is of little use, since the art they claim to be teaching is aikido and, to my knowledge, no one from the Aikikai is officially teaching 'aiki'. Individual teachers might well do this unofficially, but it will be up to the individual to find these teachers.
2. Another way would be to practice some form of Daito-ryu, the supposition being that Morihei Ueshiba himself practiced this and that this is what he was 'really' doing all his life. The Aikikai is seen as the villain here, since they have presented Ueshiba in such a way as to diminish the importance of his links with Takeda Sokaku, but this argument tends to ignore the fact that Ueshiba himself distanced himself from Takeda and became increasingly aware that he was practicing another art. Thus the move to diminish the connection came from Ueshiba himself, but was taken up by the Aikikai for its own reasons. The very close connection between Kisshomaru Ueshiba and his father is also a moot question here.
3. Another way would be to combine this approach with some practical hands-on training and this has the advantage of being what Ueshiba's own students appear to have done. The question then would be who to train with or under. Someone like Akuzawa Minoru, who is independent of any koryu or gendai art, but who does something that is clearly effective and important, but which he does not call aiki and which he claims is valid for any bujutsu? Notice that it is quite possible in this case to combine this (admittedly severe) personal training via Akuzawa, while still training in aikido. However, it is likely that one's aikido training would be affected by this -- and that this would not necessarily be a bad thing.
4. Another way would be to stop aikido altogether, for the supposedly pernicious effects aikido might have on the new way of training, and do something that is recognizably IP / IT, perhaps with a teacher from a lineage in CMA. It has been stated many times that IP / IT training is quite different from traditional aikido training and any mutual interaction can be an obstacle: the longer the aikido training, the greater the obstacle. I think the only way to test this hypothesis is to try it.
We are still left with the question whether any of these four ways will bring us closer to understanding what Morihei Ueshiba himself meant by 'aiki' and for me this is the point of the whole discussion here.
Best wishes,
Peter Goldsbury,
Forum Administrator,
Hiroshima, Japan