Aiki as a concept- why all the fuss?

[WVMark]

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".

Hello Peter,
I keep wondering how people can discount experience?

Bill Gleason with about 45 years of aikido experience. He trained with Koichi Tohei, Mitsugi Saotome, Seigo Yamaguchi, and Kisshomaru Ueshiba. He trained in Yamaguchi's private dojo. He's had hands on with some very high profile people. That's more than a lot of us can say. Your experiences in Japan would allow you far more breadth and depth with training with high profile people, so I'm fairly sure you can understand how much that hands on experience means. While Bill never trained with the founder, his 45 years of aikido experience is not something to be lightly dismissed. Tohei, Saotome, Yamaguchi, were all highly regarded for their skills. Kisshomaru is in his own class because he was doshu. Something which took him a bit outside of things.

Meyer Goo.
http://www.aikidosangenkai.org/blog/...aikido-hawaii/

Here’s what he said to Dan at that workshop – “Thank you, I never thought that I would feel Ueshiba Sensei’s power again. What you are doing is very important. Don’t stop. No matter what they say.”.


When told that some people believe that the material covered at the workshops is unrelated to Aikido, Meyer Goo’s answer was short and to the point – “Who are these people, did they train with Ueshiba Sensei?”.

Jamie Yugawa writes, "One senior participant, a long time martial artist in his 90′s who felt O Sensei during his 1961 visit, declared this man to be the closest he has seen to O Sensei…..ever. I heard that with my own ears."

Allen Beebe
Studied with Rinjiro Shirata. Shirata. There's a piece by Ellis Amdur on Aikiweb about how Shirata shows up at the hombu dojo and tosses people around. The important part being that Shirata felt completely different than everyone else there.

The list goes on and on with aikido students of long training histories and experiences saying about the same thing. How can we discount all of these people? How are their experiences of limited value? That's what I don't understand.

Thank you,
Mark

[TimothyKleinert]

The Tokimune quote is difficult, for at best it's a veiled explanation of aiki. But if "aiki" represents a general strategy/philiosophy of jin use (internally generated force), then there might be a kernel of truth in that statement.

I brought up that quote not to explain "aiki", but just because it seems to paint aiki as a thing you do to another person.

[Cady Goldfield]

Lance,

A few thoughts, FWIW...
Sometimes "a cigar is just a cigar," and the "pull-when-pushed..." might just be what it is. But, by accounts Tokimune was taught aiki by his father and admonished not to show it. So, the remark could well have been subterfuge, or, as Timothy pointed out, a definition of an aspect or quality that can be a part of aiki -- without giving away anything.

There has never been any concrete proof of an ancient provenance for Daito-ryu aiki. Certainly, the practical martial-combat system itself could well date way back, as other clan systems, now koryu, do, but the "internal" I'm not so sure about. Some have noted that it seems to have mysteriously appeared with Sokaku. There's a possibility that Sokaku might have obtained it from Saigō Tanomo (AKA Chikanori Hoshia), the Shinto priest to whom Sokaku was sent by his father to learn "oshikiuchi" and to keep out of trouble.

If I recall the historical info (provided by Ellis Amdur, et al.) correctly, Tanomo had some Chinese ancestry and connections, and although he was not himself a martial artist, perhaps he had a possession of neigong/qigong (internal conditioning exercises) used by the Chinese for health and wellness for centuries, and which - when discovered to also be relevant to enhancing physical combat - had found its way into Chinese martial systems. The question has been raised as to whether that oshikiuchi may have included such instruction. It's conjecture and unprovable (lacking the discovery of authentic historic documents), yet it seems to me to be the most plausible of answers.

Aiki means making your spirit "fit in" with your opponent's. In other words it means bringing your movements into accord with your opponent's. After all it means the same thing as the "principle of gentleness," for it is an explanation of the principle from within.


Again, the above (along with Tomiki's comment that aiki is about flexibility "from within" is yet another facet of the same thing. All parts of the same elephant. In the Taoist approach to the nature of things, non-resistance -- going with the flow, water fitting the vessel, etc. -- is a key aspect. In the CIMA of tai chi chuan, for example, non-resistance is put into physical application. If your opponent pushes you, you take advantage of his commitment to that force. If your opponent pulls you, you also take advantage of his commitment to that force. And you fit into it, either way.

But even though the fit-in is non-resistant, intent is involved - it's not mindless like water, even though the movement seems naturally non-resistant like water. After all, we're mindful beings. Your push contains the ground. Your pull contains the ground. And, you are willfully manipulating your "innards" in such a way that you can draw/suction and expel/expand musculature considered to be In/Yin and Yo/Yang to both stabilize yourself and to increase the amount of force you are, without resistance, giving back to your opponent. I believe that this is a key way in which the non-resistance of an internal system differs from those of certain schools of Aikido in which you must use timing and "psyche-out" to lead uke externally into a void, rather than connecting physically with him on the inside, internally sucking him into a void whether he is "tricked" into it or not.

The note about Tomiki saying that Daito-ryu was not known for being about "aiki" and was more technique-based. Possibly, aiki was reserved for a select group of students, but the larger student populace was given the jujutsu techniques. This has been discussed in a number of places, in online forums and in books and essays, many times.

- Tomiki's comments make it clear that aiki or jū is not a 'state' (although I am not sure what that means, really), and certainly not a static 'immovable object' exercise, but an appropriate, measured physical response to an opponent's attack. If an opponent does not move, move around them and keep going. That, too, is jū.

Just because a demo or an exercise in "static immovable object" mode is given, doesn't mean that in fighting application a person can't make it work. Moving from conditioning-training to fighting application involves another set of practices. You train to be able to make rapid changes from mobile to "rooted" in an instant, and to know when and for how long. Transitional movements have a science and art all their own. But, IME, as long as you have one foot (or butt cheek, or connection with an opponent who is standing/sitting on the ground) on the ground, you can receive, ground and neutralize force.

People lose sight of the forest because they are looking at individual trees. It's better, IMO, to think about the principle(s) involved and what drives them, rather than getting overly caught up in the demos themselves and whether they would "work in a fight." That's not the point.

"Aiki is not a state." I can't know what Tomiki meant by that, either, since I never met him and will never know how he experienced aiki. If he meant, you can't do one thing and maintain it forever, as a state, under any circumstance, without changing... then that, I think I can comprehend.

Another concept that is embraced in mindful internal training, is that Nature (and, thus we, as a part of it) is unstable and change is a constant.
The state you were stable in, one second ago, is no longer stable if the conditions around you/it have changed, so you have to adjust with it. To remain stable, we have to change with the change. It's a matter of relativity. In that respect, you can never remain in the same state, so, aiki can't be a static state of being. We're in a constant state of flux, trying to maintain stability in an "infinite" number of present moments. To make your aiki fit the present conditions, you have to be constantly adjusting the processes - the counterbalances of In and Yo (Yin and Yang) within your body.

Anyway, a few cents' worth.

P.S. I hope weasels don't rip your flesh, and you can post more of Tomiki's material.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lance wrote:

Default Earliest English definition of aiki?

What if the original meaning was not much more than that push / pull?

I give you the words regarding aiki from one of Ueshiba Morihei sensei's earliest and most accomplished students, Tomiki Kenji shihan, the first aikido 8dan, a personal student from around 1922, and a co-instructor of aiki-bujutsu coordinated and sometimes paired with Ueshiba for years.

******
EXPLANATION OF AIKIDO* TECHNIQUES
(According to the Principles of Judo)

SECTION I. FUNDAMENTALS OF AIKIDO

....
Of all jujutsu schools continuing up to the present day, the aiki-jujutsu of the Daito school is perhaps the best in respect of atemi-waza and kansetsu-waza. According to den-sho (manuscripts of instruction and records of the secrets of the martial arts), the aiki-jujutsu dates as far back as the Kamakura period (1185-1336). It was found by Yoshimitsu Minamoto (d. 1120) and handed down in the Minamoto family for generations, and then was taken over by the Takeda family in the Aizu clan. After seven generations the legitimate successor of the art is now Mr. Moritaka Ueshiba. A man of profound religious beliefs, he made many additions to the art, and it is now known as aikido. It consists of a large number of techniques, 2,664 in all, including offensive and defensive techniques to be applied in sitting or standing positions, or with the use of a weapon, such as the sword, spear, or club. There is no rationally laid down method of training in this art. Pupils have to acquire skill in the techniques one by one under the instruction of the master. It requires many years to become versed in the principles of the techniques and well trained in them, so the art is regarded as difficult for the general public to learn.
*******

* The meaning of "aikido". The old saying goes, "It is the spirit that carries the mind and controls the body." The people of ancient time believed that the man's mind and body and consequently his strength were under the control of the spirit. Aiki means making your spirit "fit in" with your opponent's. In other words it means bringing your movements into accord with your opponent's. After all it means the same thing as the "principle of gentleness," for it is an explanation of the principle from within.

(emphasis added. The footnote at * is Tomiki's.)

Tomiki Kenji. Judo: Appendix Aikido. Japan Travel Bureau: Tokyo, 1956, pp 101-102

NOTES:
- Tomiki knew Ueshiba from before he changed his name from Moritaka to Morihei
- Tomiki calls aiki simply an explanation of the principle of flexibility "from within", while making it clear there is an external explanation, too
- 柔 can be read jū or yawara, and means flexibility or gentleness 　
- 柔の理 jū-no-ri, the principle of flexibility, is one of the fundamental principles of jūdō, jū being the first syllable of jūdō, hence literally 'the way of flexibility'
- see my earlier post on the Huáng Shígōng Sān Lüè, the Three Strategies of Huang Shigong, for the apocryphal origins of jū-no-ri (Kano shihan himself once wrote he had doubts about that origin but never offered a reasonable alternative origin. Tomiki discusses some of this, see below)
- by 1956, Tomiki had been teaching aikido for over 20 years, yet still notes 'There is no rationally laid down method of training in this art.' He had rationalized (and recorded) the aiki-bujutsu he taught to the Japanese Imperial Manchurian Army, because they required it, being the bureaucratic warriors they were.

COMMENTS:
- Note that Tomiki does not cite Daitō ryū as primarily known for aiki, but rather for atemi-waza (striking techniques) and kansetsu-waza (joint techniques); those techniques are the focus of this section of his book. While he does not specifically cite a lack of ability of aiki or jū in Daitō ryū, of which he was very aware, he reserves his praise for superb command of jū-no-ri for Kitō ryū, the most esoteric jūjutsu school, now essentially extinct, long ago absorbed into Kōdōkan jūdō.
- The Koshiki no kata (ancient form) of jūdō is about all left of the school, once a complex sōgō bujutsu with multiple armed and unarmed forms. BTW, Koshiki no kata is almost never performed well, much less correctly, for a number of reasons, so unless you've seen it performed correctly, don't bother pointing out that most examples suck. I know.
- Tomiki's comments make it clear that aiki or jū is not a 'state' (although I am not sure what that means, really), and certainly not a static 'immovable object' exercise, but an appropriate, measured physical response to an opponent's attack. If an opponent does not move, move around them and keep going. That, too, is jū.
- If weasels do not rip my flesh*, some day I will post Tomiki's (rather long) exposition of the physical and philosophic details, which draws on jū, wa, ancient Japanese history, the Analects of Confucius, describes appropriate responses, and how to win in randori.
- What is seen today in postwar jūdō is not the jūdō that Tomiki shihan knew, so don't bother pointing that out, either.

Lance Gatling

* apologies to Mr. Zappa

[P Goldsbury]

Hello Peter,
I keep wondering how people can discount experience?

Thank you,
Mark

Hello Mark,

I think this shows both the attractiveness and the limitation of a formula like IHTBF: the problems involved in using language to convey experiences, especially inner experiences, the problems themselves being a result of the strain of skepticism embedded in our intellectual tradition. This intellectual tradition goes right back to the Greeks, especially the rhetoric associated with Aristotle. It is not commonly known that the works that had the most influence in Western Europe were his rhetorical works: the Rhetoric and Poetics, which were both concerned with language. The Latin name for the first work was Ars Rhetorica: the art of using language to persuade people to do what you want them to do. It is also not commonly known that one of the aims of Aristotle's philosophizing, like the work of his teacher, Plato, was to counter the traditions of skepticism and sophism, both of which, it is argued, distort the role of language in describing experiences.

Thus, some might take issue with your account of Rinjiro Shirata at the Hombu Dojo. Shirata's aikido was unusually good, but he did not feel completely different. Or, if he did, no one saw this. The difference was either 'hidden in plain sight', because those who experienced it did not know what to look for, or was not there to begin with.

Ellis Amdur's IHTBF columns over at AikiWeb are successful (some more successful than others) because they are verbal portraits of experiences that by their very nature are not replicable.

Best wishes,

PAG

EDIT: I have added an 's' to experience because it shows the problem more clearly. The term you used is an abstraction, a name for a collective residue of knowledge built up over time, but the knowledge itself comes from successfully encountering and negotiating a vast number of discrete items. Last week I had members of a class try to answer the question, 'What is it like to do X?' or 'What would it be like to be X?' They found it harder to see that the way you pose the question in some sense determines what you are going to accept as a possible answer.

[gavinslater]

I wonder a few things about Ueshiba Sensei;
1. If Ueshiba Sensei used the chinese classics as his way of understanding what he was taught, or if it was what he was actually taught from Takeda Sensei? Tenchijin can explain many things.
2. Did what he learnt from Takeda Sensei make him into the more religious/spiritual person he became?
3. There are many accounts of him praying/meditating for long periods during the night etc. I wonder if he had to do this, or if he wanted to do this?

The problem I think about having a definition of aiki is you really need to understand Daito Ryu to understand the definition.

Gavin

[WVMark]

Hello Mark,

I think this shows both the attractiveness and the limitation of a formula like IHTBF: the problems involved in using language to convey experiences, especially inner experiences, the problems themselves being a result of the strain of skepticism embedded in our intellectual tradition.

This is true, especially for anyone whose own experiences lie outside of all the listed people. It is far easier to believe what one's own sensei is saying in one's own dojo than read some words on a page about people neither you nor your sensei know, let alone have trained with. However, for those who have two degrees of separation or less to these people, it is far, far harder to ignore the mounted experiences given. To do so requires effort of a nature beyond skeptical.

Skepticism can be healthy. It can save one from "drinking the kool-aid" as the saying goes. In fact, quite a lot of the highly ranked people who, when first going to train in IP/aiki, displayed various amounts of skepticism. Their long years of experience backed that healthy view up. Yet, in nearly 99% of the time, all skepticism fell away.

So, I can understand anyone well outside the growing "circle" of people who have trained IP/aiki keeping their healthy skepticism when reading threads like these. We have all been there. On the other side of that skepticism is "emptying the cup". To look at something foreign and say something like, "yeah, I can't believe what I'm reading, but what about the chance that what these people are saying is true?" It is extremely easy to toss aside one person's view, even a 7th dan shihan, of aiki when it is outside the normal range of what is talked about. However, it it begins to get harder and harder to do that when more and more experienced people start espousing similar views of aiki. When anyone reads that a person who trained with the founder of aikido is on board with this different view of aiki ... healthy skepticism should still have room for an open mind.

And that is where I ask the question, how can people discount experiences? Most especially when they are close to the sources. No matter the distance to the source, the open mind allows one to look for opportunities to gain the experiences to create an informed decision. Of course, the question is partially rhetorical as many people can discount experiences in all manner of ways and means from rationalizations to being closed minded.

Nothing here is new to you, but maybe those reading this thread will be able to remain skeptical while keeping an open mind and see that discounting experiences, especially from people who have long training histories, is really not a good choice.

[Cliff Judge]

Relying on IHTBF accounts to define what a thing is or is not raises a couple of problems. It is a celebrity endorsement at best and does not rise to the level of "expert testimony" until you subject it to thorough cross-examination. Seven individuals who you take for granted to "know what aiki is" may in fact have very different ideas of what aiki is. And what are these people's motivations for making the endorsement?

But this skips past what is probably the most important issue, which has honestly been a problem for the aiki arts since they were initially began by Takeda. IHTBF accounts all talk about aiki as though it were an effect. He did something, and I felt this unusual power, yada yada yada.

Well the reason why the Daito ryu people get upset is because to them Aiki is not only the effect, it is more the whole process of training that leads you there. And the effect isn't necessarily something that is meant to be applied. It is not necessarily the end goal.

It matters quite a bit what the training is, and where it comes from. Daito ryu folks don't want to see their training methods whored out. On the Aikido side, there is less general confidence and devotion to a training method, but there is still the problem of using the founder's name and being like "you guys are worthless, we're the ones practicing the true art of your founder over here" and then there winds up being a considerable philosophical and pedagogical disconnect.

[Carina Reinhardt]

This thread and most of the threads regarding aiki remind me the tale fo the Elephant and the blind men

http://www.jainworld.com/literature/story25.htm

[WVMark]

Relying on IHTBF accounts to define what a thing is or is not raises a couple of problems. It is a celebrity endorsement at best and does not rise to the level of "expert testimony" until you subject it to thorough cross-examination. Seven individuals who you take for granted to "know what aiki is" may in fact have very different ideas of what aiki is. And what are these people's motivations for making the endorsement?

But this skips past what is probably the most important issue, which has honestly been a problem for the aiki arts since they were initially began by Takeda. IHTBF accounts all talk about aiki as though it were an effect. He did something, and I felt this unusual power, yada yada yada.

Well the reason why the Daito ryu people get upset is because to them Aiki is not only the effect, it is more the whole process of training that leads you there. And the effect isn't necessarily something that is meant to be applied. It is not necessarily the end goal.

It matters quite a bit what the training is, and where it comes from. Daito ryu folks don't want to see their training methods whored out. On the Aikido side, there is less general confidence and devotion to a training method, but there is still the problem of using the founder's name and being like "you guys are worthless, we're the ones practicing the true art of your founder over here" and then there winds up being a considerable philosophical and pedagogical disconnect.

Wow, simply amazing. In one breath you discount named people with solid training histories ranging from directly training with the founder to training with deshi of the founder and in the very next microsecond you use nameless, faceless "Daito ryu people" to bolster your argument. And readers are supposed to take you seriously when you do that? We must examine "expert" (7th dan shihan such as Bill Gleason isn't an expert in the field of aikido?) witnesses while we must believe nameless, faceless "Daito ryu people" without the same scrutiny?

To go even further, you are once again talking about koryu secrets of which you have already stated you are neither deeply initiated nor a public spokesperson. Which brings up the critical point about how you can talk about the secrets, the training of the secrets, or the defining characteristics of the secrets, if you haven't even been initiated into them yet? How is it that you know the secrets of Kondo's Daito ryu aiki as it is compared to the IP/aiki training? You would have to be deeply initiated into the former koryu and have trained long and hard in the latter. You have done neither, but yet post as if you are an authority on both with some mud slinging thrown in. I quote "their training methods whored out". I think you owe an apology for at least that. All of that doesn't even take into count that you're talking about the whole Daito ryu world in a grand, sweeping gesture.

Then, let's go back to the first paragraph. You wrote, "individuals who you take for granted to "know what aiki is" may in fact have very different ideas of what aiki is". You don't know. You haven't asked them. It's why you used "may" and then tried to bolster the baseless argument with the words "in fact". Next you try to assign some kind of ulterior motive to the people I named with "And what are these people's motivations for making the endorsement?" Let's not forget the mud slinging with tossing in "being like "you guys are worthless"". None of the IP/aiki people have ever said that, we have all stated again and again that all of the aikido world has value and worth.

These are the kinds of posts that are conversation killers. They are back handed insults doled out with a hint of authority under the guise of knowing what is the truth ... all the while they are insults, there is no authority nor deeply initiated into koryu secrets nor advanced training, and without the hard training into the other side (in this case, the IP/aiki group) there can be no foundation for any kind of "truth" to the matter.

Really to stay on topic, I would look for a post that talks about Kondo's Daito ryu aiki, how he trains it, how he defines it, and what characteristics are there to show it? Except that it is, according to Kondo, koryu and koryu secrets. So, I expect it to be only shown to the few that are deeply initiated. Everyone else will have extremely little to no knowledge of it. (Think about it. If they did, it wouldn't be secret and everyone would be able to do it.) So, in that regard, it's already a non starter for a topic. Now, if anyone who isn't deeply initiated starts comparing/contrasting anything to koryu Daito ryu aiki ... I would think that everyone would immediately begin to wonder how that is even possible, let alone why this person is talking about koryu secrets on the Internet. And then, when it is learned that this person doesn't even have the training in the area they are comparing/contrasting ... I would think that everyone would immediately begin to wonder how that is possible and start asking for extremely detailed research to back up the claims. When back handed insults are added ... I would think that forum owners/moderators would take a much closer look at the person posting such things. But, that's me and my views.

IMO,
Mark

[WVMark]

This thread and most of the threads regarding aiki remind me the tale fo the Elephant and the blind men

http://www.jainworld.com/literature/story25.htm

In my experience, that's not the case. I can talk about aiki to any of the people training IP/aiki and understand most of the things we talk about. Sometimes we get definitions of training words mixed, but that's to be expected in this kind of training. For example, trying to talk about "intent" in training terms on a forum is tough. However, we can talk about Ueshiba's words and we're pretty much all on the same page. We point to Chris Li's translations and go, Oh yeah, I understand that now!

So, back to what Dan posted in the first post:

How is that possible? Aiki as yin and yang (in yo ho) from the hara...out.
1. No ukemi, and training in what is essential to aiki..internal strength as its base. The marked ability TO NOT CONNECT TO SOMEONE ELSE'S CENTER, retain my center against anyone's access to it, hence their aiki simply hitting a wall and failing 100% of the time.

We talk about yin/yang, in/yo, ka/mi, Izanagi/Izanami in training and we know what we mean. We understand that you have to have opposing forces in the body for aiki. That it is intent which drives the training. When Ueshiba talked about being the universe, it applied to the concept of NOT connecting to someone else's center. They became part of him, which was an effect of Ueshiba's aiki. And after training some amount of time, we begin to start to be able to do that. We don't have to connect to someone else's center, to try to lead them off balance, to try to draw them out with timing and movement. Small steps for sure, but they are at least some progress forward.

While the rest of the aikido world creates various definitions for aiki, the IP/aiki group tends to understand each other. There is no blind men and elephants in our room. We have the universe.

Mark

[Cliff Judge]

Let's put this thing in the bag, Mark, I'm doing my best to explain where I am coming from, here, and can't even get you to talk a little bit about why you care about the whole issue.

[Carina Reinhardt]

There is no blind men and elephants in our room. We have the universe.

Mark

Then I'm relieved

[pgsmith]

I don't see what all the fuss is about personally. Trying to pin an exact definition on anything in a context driven language such as Japanese is an exercise in futility and frustration. It reminds me very much of the old budo, bujutsu arguments that used to rage on and on.

[Dan Harden]

Let's put this thing in the bag, Mark, I'm doing my best to explain where I am coming from, here, and can't even get you to talk a little bit about why you care about the whole issue.

You asked Mark why he cared about this issue. I have stated over and over that ...I don't care... about this issue. I DO care about the way you three have comported yourselves over this issue. I see it as low level, overly zealous, students run amok, making claims and statements your own teachers will not publicly support and even refute. You three need a more even and tempered response to people about these issues.
As for your answers?
You have as yet to enter into any discussion. You just keep restating your points
*aiki and its teaching methods to attain aiki are owned by DR.
*You, Nathan, Chris and Brian keep telling people that they do not know what aiki is in DR
*Secondarily, no one does unless they are deeply initiated in DR.

Those we quoted who refute your claim are your seniors from your own arts. They state categorically that DR DOES NOT OWN AIKI.

Point 1.
Why should anyone care what you think?

Next we have the idea that aiki exists in other arts and that it might be the same or even better.
The problem is that none of you (by your own standards) are familiar enough or have substantial skills in those other methods and as yet are not yourselves deeply initiated into anything in your own arts to present any credible argument, comparisons and or analysis. Thus you are disqualified by your own standards.

Point 2.
Why should anyone care what you think?
The entire line of argument you have presented here over the years never had any value as a supported factual claim on aiki.
I can't help but quote Peters answers to Nathan from the other thread.
I reject your claims at face value
I don't care what you think.

The OP:
My opening post was to demonstrate for one and all that no one related to the topic will actually discuss the topic. You are reading what I stated earlier:
"It's okay to talk about koryu
As long as you don't talk about koryu."

It's just the way it is.
Let DR be DR. Let all Koryu do their thing and be proprietary about their methods. Having to keep your stuff in your art, as it may be integral to that art, is a necessary thing. However, presuming, and/or stating that your stuff simply cannot exist in a series of other arts is simply ignorant. So far in my journey I have seen very surprised Shihan, Menkyo, and Chinese Grandmaster Taiji teachers, refusing to believe that this or that came from or existed in the....."other side." And from others, that it even exits ...at all!

[Cliff Judge]

Why do you call what you do "aiki", Dan?