Home
Reiki Digest
Log in
The following post first written on the Reiki Cafe (http://www.nexuscafe.com/bin/home.cgi/Home/reiki), reprinted here by invitation of rlei_ki, and with the permission of Reiki Cafe moderator. Seems to echo your previous conversation about diagnosis.
Blessings,
Aronaya
--- post follows ---
For a long time, I've pondered Mrs. Takata's example, in the great healing that prompted her to bring Reiki to the West. By all accounts, she spent four months receiving Reiki, rather than undergo surgery for gallstones, benign tumor, appendicitis and asthma. At least one of those conditions is acute and potentially life-threatening.
Nowadays, many would call that dangerous neglect, at least the part about not doing surgery for appendicitis. But in that time and place, there appeared to be more of an equal balance between the two approaches, surgery or Reiki.
Now as then, any competent adult may legally and morally refuse medical treatment, so that remains true. However, it seems, if we follow the mainstream, that few would choose an "alternative" therapy as a first approach to a severe health issue.
Here's the question that's nudging me: if one has a choice of healing approaches, one involving only gentle laying on of hands, and others involving powerful drugs with scary side effects, or invasive surgery with risks of infection, blood loss, complications etc., then...doesn't the "first, do no harm" principle favor the non-invasive healing to be tried first?
And, following Mrs. Takata's experience, shouldn't we spend as much time doing Reiki as it takes, to effect a positive change? And, if we only do an hour, once a week, or once a month, or a half-hour per week, as noted in another post concerning a Reiki study [NIH study of Reiki impact on painful diabetic neuropathy], then doesn't that set us up for weak outcomes, as compared to the perception of pharmaceutical or surgical effectiveness?
Yet, our common fee-for-service structures, patterned after massage therapy, psychotherapy, and corporate staff meetings, favor regular but not too frequent one-hour sessions.
Where did this one-hour standard come from? Not so long ago, healings were done for as long as it took. Medicine man trained to dance and sing for days and nights; Lomi-lomi, a Hawaiian modality, went on for days, and, Reiki was done on a person for as long as it took -- in Mrs. Takata's case, four months.
I know, we will say to ourselves, modern society is so fast-paced, that to do business, we have to offer one-hour time slices, and charge accordingly. But, as healers, isn't part of our job to heal the society, one person at a time, starting with ourselves? If we do hands-on just long enough to get started, then close it out because the clock beckons, accept payment with gratitude, and bless the client on her way out, then aren't we missing a huge opportunity to encourage time spent on self...healing?
So, these questions go together -- shouldn't we have an ethic of trying Reiki first, and then do it for long enough to make a difference?
With great respect for the undeniable accomplishments of Western medicine (incidentally, public health being one of the biggest social impacts -- sanitation, preventive medicine, awareness of diet and exercise), how can we return to a more balanced perspective, one that removes causes rather than repair the damage, expensively, after the fact?
How can we, as mindful, responsible, and enthusiastic Reiki providers, help guide the way to a new balance?
With a life as time-sliced as anyone's, I am challenged by these questions. In asking them, I hope to find a new balance for myself.
Thank you all, for reading and inquiring and pondering. I hope these questions resonate for you.
Blessings,
Aronaya
Blessings,
Aronaya
--- post follows ---
For a long time, I've pondered Mrs. Takata's example, in the great healing that prompted her to bring Reiki to the West. By all accounts, she spent four months receiving Reiki, rather than undergo surgery for gallstones, benign tumor, appendicitis and asthma. At least one of those conditions is acute and potentially life-threatening.
Nowadays, many would call that dangerous neglect, at least the part about not doing surgery for appendicitis. But in that time and place, there appeared to be more of an equal balance between the two approaches, surgery or Reiki.
Now as then, any competent adult may legally and morally refuse medical treatment, so that remains true. However, it seems, if we follow the mainstream, that few would choose an "alternative" therapy as a first approach to a severe health issue.
Here's the question that's nudging me: if one has a choice of healing approaches, one involving only gentle laying on of hands, and others involving powerful drugs with scary side effects, or invasive surgery with risks of infection, blood loss, complications etc., then...doesn't the "first, do no harm" principle favor the non-invasive healing to be tried first?
And, following Mrs. Takata's experience, shouldn't we spend as much time doing Reiki as it takes, to effect a positive change? And, if we only do an hour, once a week, or once a month, or a half-hour per week, as noted in another post concerning a Reiki study [NIH study of Reiki impact on painful diabetic neuropathy], then doesn't that set us up for weak outcomes, as compared to the perception of pharmaceutical or surgical effectiveness?
Yet, our common fee-for-service structures, patterned after massage therapy, psychotherapy, and corporate staff meetings, favor regular but not too frequent one-hour sessions.
Where did this one-hour standard come from? Not so long ago, healings were done for as long as it took. Medicine man trained to dance and sing for days and nights; Lomi-lomi, a Hawaiian modality, went on for days, and, Reiki was done on a person for as long as it took -- in Mrs. Takata's case, four months.
I know, we will say to ourselves, modern society is so fast-paced, that to do business, we have to offer one-hour time slices, and charge accordingly. But, as healers, isn't part of our job to heal the society, one person at a time, starting with ourselves? If we do hands-on just long enough to get started, then close it out because the clock beckons, accept payment with gratitude, and bless the client on her way out, then aren't we missing a huge opportunity to encourage time spent on self...healing?
So, these questions go together -- shouldn't we have an ethic of trying Reiki first, and then do it for long enough to make a difference?
With great respect for the undeniable accomplishments of Western medicine (incidentally, public health being one of the biggest social impacts -- sanitation, preventive medicine, awareness of diet and exercise), how can we return to a more balanced perspective, one that removes causes rather than repair the damage, expensively, after the fact?
How can we, as mindful, responsible, and enthusiastic Reiki providers, help guide the way to a new balance?
With a life as time-sliced as anyone's, I am challenged by these questions. In asking them, I hope to find a new balance for myself.
Thank you all, for reading and inquiring and pondering. I hope these questions resonate for you.
Blessings,
Aronaya
soineann
. 
