The idea of gaining wisdom through oneself and/or by one's own means should not be considered antithetical to the process of mastery.  This, in my opinion, is the point of the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra.  This is demonstrated in the contrast that Vimalakirti presents as a layperson to his esteemed company – which is a “who’s who” of Bodhisattvas.  Therefore, gaining wisdom through oneself cannot be considered antithetical to the teacher/deshi dynamic either – since it too is conducive to mastery.

To be sure, we must be cautious when the position of self-attained wisdom is used as a cover to the avoidances we may all hold in regards to engaging the Way fully, but the misuse of a position does not make that position false or invalid in its proper use.  I would say, not as antithetical and more than merely a matter of current circumstances, more than merely a solution to a given set of logistical circumstances (i.e. “There are not enough teachers to go around having mind-to-mind relationships with deshi.”), like the Sutra hints, we must consider self-attained wisdom as integral to mastery. We should not guard against this type of practice (i.e. self-attained wisdom) for the fear we may have concerning its misuses, and we would do well, I believe, to not have to feel so pressed to justify it logistically in order to see it as valid (e.g. “Sometimes a person does not have access to a good teacher.”). 

The misuses of self-attained wisdom will take care of themselves.  Moreover, the justifications to support self-attained wisdom, in their unsaid, may be doing many a disservice as they subtly suggest that one should privilege external elements to internal ones.   After all, coming to a teacher for the mere reason of being validated (as opposed to being self-validated), which is what one will be left with if self-attained wisdom is considered antithetical to the training process and to the sensei/deshi dynamic, is a type of avoidance in itself as well, a type of disengagement from the true training.  This may be a bigger problem, one we should more be concerned with than the intuitive misuse of self-attained wisdom (i.e. avoiding a teacher). 

As I said, the misuse of self-attained wisdom will take care of itself, as fraudulent or superficial insights cannot help but to be exposed as such.  However, for the most part, the institutional framework of Aikido politics will tend to support the deshi that comes to teachers with never wanting to think for themselves.  This is the point of all institutional frameworks.  Aikido’s institutional frameworks are no different.  In time then, as we can already see to a certain degree, that institutional framework will come to support not thinking for oneself, a turning away from self-attained wisdom, and even the absence of mastery.  To me, that is a scarier option than some person that mistakenly thinks he has invented the wheel – even when he has presented a square one.

Here is the issue:  On the one hand, we can clearly note that the true transmission of the art cannot take place within, because of, or via an institutional framework.  On the other hand, we can note that the institutional framework will, through mechanisms that are natural to it, tone down the significance of this inability as it tirelessly works to give significance to what it can achieve, support, and produce.  Abstractly speaking, the institutional framework of Aikido cannot do “x,” so it tones down or reduces the significance of not doing “x,” while at the same time it holds up “y,” which it can do and which it tries not to distinguish too clearly from “x.”  Alternatively, concretely speaking, mastery is not transmitted via an institutional framework.  Yet, an institutional framework can support technical reproduction.  The Aikido institutional framework will uphold technical reproduction over and above mastery (which it cannot transmit), while it works to hide the fact that there is a great difference between technical reproduction and mastery. 

I think this dilemma is something that just goes with the territory whenever you are dealing with art, and/or a “mind to mind” transmission, and an institutional framework.  I think history will reflect this as well.  This is why we see many “founders” or masters making simultaneous moves in their self-validation and in their rejection of pre-established institutions.  The two seem to have to always be together because of the intrinsic nature of institutions and self-validation.  Many have actually spoken of this outright – Krishnamurti, Ikkyu, Jesus, the Buddha, Osensei, etc. 

The question is this: How do we reconcile all of this in our own training (assuming mastery is our goal)?

Our concern is this: (Putting aside the obvious misuses of self-attained wisdom) The slogan, “Simply shut up and train,” may not be the cure-all mantra we all wish it could be.  It may turn out to be the very voice of the institution; the voice that speaks to us in a sort of Jedi-mind-trick manner; the voice preventing us from ever achieving mastery over anything but being satisfied just the same.