Hi Jason, Please tell me you're not lecturing me on how to take Japanese history, Jason. And as far as the "history not yet revealed", and having "concrete linkage", there isn't anything concrete that has even been brought forth for the existance of Daito Ryu historically... now you, with your (bluntly) very limited exposure to Daito Ryu, have concrete links to a history containing a lineage from a completely unrelated art? You'll forgive us for not running to your side there.... Oh, and I didn't think you were planning to put the book online here, Jason, but you are obviously looking to put it out to the public in some form. Here's the thing, Jason. Your method of learning (infrequent seminars and a training group) is not the only way that Daito Ryu is learnt. Additionally, your thirteen years amounted to you being awarded a Nidan... which isn't particularly high, and typically not high enough to receive the teachings at the level you're targeting this. This is part of why I'd question exactly what actual research you could have done to come up with such a bizarre conclusion. Quick question, though... how many "projects" do you have going? So far, since you joined here, you've mentioned at least half a dozen, by my reckoning.... which mainly consist of you asking people for their stories on the internet, which seems to make up the bulk of your "research" methods. Well, I'm referring to the above plethora of "projects" you've brought up here... as well as some of the quite odd conclusions you've come up with, which you have said is based on your "research". As for you being considered one of, if not the most knowledgable in your Daito Ryu group, honestly without saying who was in that group, it's not going to mean much. Right. Firstly, it's debated as to what Saigo Tanomo taught Takeda, or even if he taught him at all (martially speaking). But really, where is the evidence that Saigo had any Taiji connection himself? Honestly, there doesn't look like there's anything at all... I've never heard anything about Saigo going to China, studying with any Chinese martial artists, or anything similar. He became a Shinto priest later in his life (after the Satsuma Rebellion and the Boshin War), which is not a religious form found in China... so where does any of this come from? And as far as the kanji used, honestly that's not enough to convince me (quite beside the fact that you state you have absolutely no Japanese ability yourself, so you'd be relying on other's say-so), as there have been quite a number of cases of documents using older characters which are modern documents themselves. So again, there is nothing that you've given that gives even pause for thought. And that's kinda the point. I get that you're not about to just put your entire book out here, but so far you've provided absolutely nothing, other than you thinking you see some similarity between some Daito Ryu drills and one specific Taiji one, which isn't even common to all forms of Taiji... So you're saying that, although you have said you studied "for thirteen years directly under Okamoto Sensei", which would presumably mean he was in charge of your development, he awarded you your ranking during that time, and he gave you your direction, you actually were under someone else, who trained and ranked you, but didn't teach you anything so when you stopped learning under him, you had to start again, and then got ranked up to Nidan? So how long were you actually learning when it wasn't this "wasted" time? Because really, if you got your Shodan while studying "directly under Okamoto Shihan", why would you have needed to start again under him? It's really looking like your time in Daito Ryu, and your exposure to it's teachings, are rather more limited than you've implied. Hmm. This really seems to imply a close relationship... but I'm not sure about that. Do you have any points on it? You've started with asking if anyone here has thoughts about the idea, but you've yet to give any actual back up to your ideas. And the "personal" questions are about seeing how valid your research is... after all, we have people like Zenjael (Alex) here who also believes his knowledge is pretty special... yet gets pretty much everything wrong every time he types. I'm not sure why you'd jump on that, Jason... Quite beside the point that they were having some fun with the idea, it's infinitely more plausible than what you're proposing here. After all, Mikkyo is a Japanese form of Buddhism which has influenced the spiritual traditions of a range of Japanese martial arts, which is quite well documented and known, whereas you're basically saying "hey, these two arts from different times, locations, cultures, and more have similar movements, they must be related!" So yes, the idea of a Taiji connection is a huge jump, and the idea of a Mikkyo connection isn't. If you aren't aware of that, you're really way out of your depth in this type of research. Look, I don't want to suggest this is the case, but are you aware that when a Japanese instructor has decided that a student isn't worth teaching, that's pretty much what they say? Gentle, non-committal encouragement to just go and keep going with what you're doing, rather than continuing to correct them and pay attention to their development? Just a thought.... Again, though Jason, what "secrets" would you have been privy to at such a low level, having to start over, and seeing Okamoto at infrequent seminars? I have students who, after training in one aspect or another for a while, have little breakthroughs, and think they have a deep understanding, or have gotten one or another "secret"... however, that is far from the case. Okay. So... no teacher of Daito Ryu support the idea, no-one who is familiar with either Daito Ryu or Taiji support it, no-one familiar with history can see any support for it, it's based on your incorrect dates and historical understanding (as detailed earlier in the thread from the CMA side), and an observation of a similar action found in two arts? Isn't that a clue for you, at least as to why the idea is being met with such resistance here? It's not that we're not open minded, it's that there hasn't been any reason presented to consider it for even a moment. At least twice now you have seen the comment that comes up over your rep icon and complained about it in public threads... have you given any thought to the fact that it comes from such comments as these? You have shown no evidence whatsoever for your, really, outlandish claims, even when asked for some 5 pages now and being presented with evidence that flatly contradicts your idea, which you have not answered or even acknowledged. The comment is then made that you are seemingly in denial of the reality of what you are proposing, and you come back with a "flat earth" comment? Firstly, there really aren't parallel's between not giving credence to your idea and the "flat earth" supporters you're bringing up... in fact, they go in opposite directions. And secondly, the idea of a flat earth can be disproven by providing the evidence of it being curved... where is the evidence for your claim? Then present your evidence. You made the claim in public, you've been asked for something to back it up, but you have so far said "it's in the book", or "I'm not going to put my entire book here", or something similar... I appreciate your position, but come on. If you make an extraordinary claim, it needs extraordinary proof. And if you make that claim in public, be prepared to present that proof in public. Otherwise, don't make the claim. Hmm. But if we apply critical thinking to your proposal, present evidence against it, and ask for your evidence (which we are not then given), which leads us to reject your idea as out of the question, that means...? Is that anything like "Might makes right"? Or "The ends justify the means"? Honestly, in this case (and similar), just because it might fit in a way doesn't make it right. It just means that there are similarities, which could be co-incidental in entirety. Or, to give you another quote: Post hoc ergo propter hoc. And remember that that phrase is meant as a warning against making false assumptions. What facts, Jason? And as far as common sense, that has been rather lacking as well. Hmm. Not sure about that. He did say "When in doubt, tell the truth", and "Truth is stranger than fiction", as well as a number of other things, but never anything even resembling the sentiment you're putting forth there. The only occasion I can think of where such a thing would be said is more of a Wilde-ism, along the lines of "The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about". In other words, a deliberate irony designed to illustrate the opposite reality. That said, the most common usage of that phrase I come across are in relation to journalism and politics, where selling the message is more important than honesty. So I don't think you're really helping yourself with that one. So you're going to present superficial similarities and circumstancial evidence? Then you're going to play connect the dots with them? I really can't say I'm overwhelmed by this approach... So you're presenting as history this idea, with no support from any other source? Surely you can see how presenting such a potentially misleading/inaccurate account could be seen as lying to people? Say, here's a quote from Twain for you... "A man is never more honest than when he names himself a liar..." But here's probably the most important question and answer in this thread: Then how could you possibly be researching these topics?