concerning 'ULE'...

You 'don't think', or 'you actually know'. I'd thought we'd agree, assumptions is the 'mother of all f-ups!' Hehe, .

I don't claim to know much of anything. I don't believe it can, based on personal research and experience. I've explained my understanding of it. But if I'm shown evidence that suggests otherwise...

My views of Reiki have shifted drastically since I was first introduced to it, and I doubt they'll stop.

Anyhow, wabi, it was you whom was saying 'death is a natural process of life' in our chat here. No point saying it if it's irrelevant to subject,

I didn't say it was irrelevant.

If it is a life force that all living things posses, why do some humans think they can harness that shared life force, with both the will & the ability to be the staging post for the destruction of so many other life forms. It's a direct point

Again, I am only suggesting we can aid in natural processes. We cannot do change reality. If a fish had the brain capacity to learn Usui Reiki Ryoho, could it channel Reiki too? Yes. Would it be able to kill all humans? No. The indirect death associated with Reiki is, again, indirect. It would be able to do the exact same thing I've been describing. Will finish this thought in a PM.

i'll repeat my point which made you make the above comment initially. If Reiki is some kinda 'universal life force' why is it a catalyst for so much death?

Because death is inevitable and a process of life, and by aiding a body to function efficiently and heal itself, that indirectly results in death. Reiki is not killing the bacteria, our bodies are. By aiding us in LIVING, it inherently results, indirectly, in the destruction of other life through each breath we take.

This is the way of the life of the Universe and all that's in it. "Death is a process of life."

I have not seen or experienced anything that suggests Reiki can directly cause death in any way - if you know otherwise please let me know.

Again you have to understand that my perspective is that death is an extension of life, a process that leads to our next life. Even if the only thing that happens after death is that we rot away into the Earth...

"From my rotting body, flowers shall grow and I am in them and that is eternity."
-Thomas Moore

Our death, at the very least, feeds the life of other living things.

Life leads to death, death leads to life.

I don't know how to answer your question in any other way.

Since most people don't exactly embrace the idea of death, "UDFE" isn't appropriate. I still explain my persepective to my students, but I don't introduce Reiki as "UDFE" even though, in a way, the term could apply, because:

In the end, it's just a term used to describe the Reiki phenomenon. I may have a different understanding of life and death than you, different spiritual understandings, different understandings of the words that make up the term. The term may be appropriate to explain Reiki for me and no one else. Your term may not adequately explain/summarize Reiki for me. Just like there are an infinite number of names for what many refer to as "God." To me ULFE means "loving-kindness," "compassion," "love," "the 'energy/phenomenon' that links everything in the Universe together on a most basic level," "the 'energy/phenomenon' that makes everything in the Universe function effeciently and to its highest degree on all levels" and so on. Perhaps it's best to simply call it "Reiki" and let people experience it themselves.

Can you not just explain your common sense viewpoint to them? It's probably only when you're interacting on a perosnal level with a client that you'd need to do this. Unless you were advertising 'UDFE', hehe.

I do. But sometimes people become confused because Reiki can mean the energy we're refering to and also the method for applying it (Usui Reiki Ryoho). ULFE is defined in my courses and becomes a convenient term to make the destinction between Reiki the energy and Reiki the method.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

You 'don't think', or 'you actually know'. I'd thought we'd agree, assumptions is the 'mother of all f-ups!' Hehe, .

I don't claim to know much of anything. I don't believe it can, based on personal research and experience.

Could you share some research & personal expereince? It's a;ways refreshing to see someone make their own mind up, rather than simply repeating what everyone else says!

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

If it is a life force that all living things posses, why do some humans think they can harness that shared life force, with both the will & the ability to be the staging post for the destruction of so many other life forms. It's a direct point

Again, I am only suggesting we can aid in natural processes. We cannot do change reality. If a fish had the brain capacity to learn Usui Reiki Ryoho, could it channel Reiki too? Yes. Would it be able to kill all humans? No. The indirect death associated with Reiki is, again, indirect. It would be able to do the exact same thing I've been describing. Will finish this thought in a PM.

No probs in discussing things in PM. I think it might be useful for others benefit to keep as much of our chat in public as possible. After all, it's a reason for a forum, .

can i ask you, if you got swine flu, why would you use Reiki?

Direct, indirect, big deal, . A human uses something that some of them is suggesting is a life force all life shares, and they are harnessing it, via the vehicle of Reiki Ryoho, to start a process whereby countless multitudes of life forms are killed.

Please, if the bold script is wrong, show me exaclty where, word by word.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

i'll repeat my point which made you make the above comment initially. If Reiki is some kinda 'universal life force' why is it a catalyst for so much death?

Because death is inevitable and a process of life, and by aiding a body to function efficiently and heal itself, that indirectly results in death. Reiki is not killing the bacteria, our bodies are. By aiding us in LIVING, it inherently results, indirectly, in the destruction of other life through each breath we take.

Wabi, with the greatest respect, oyu're gonna have to reread my posts. I specifically said 'Reiki was a catalyst', and have emphasised this in PM also. Check what the word means, cause you keep saying 'directly' in response. Which is something i never sugested happened.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
I have not seen or experienced anything that suggests Reiki can directly cause death in any way - if you know otherwise please let me know.

I don't know, I was suggesting it's useless to make assumptions about anything. Without going to find out ourselves. I've lead on in this post to ask, 'what way have you checked it out? Since you're the one making the direct statment bro, .

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
Since most people don't exactly embrace the idea of death, "UDFE" isn't appropriate. I still explain my persepective to my students, but I don't introduce Reiki as "UDFE" even though, in a way, the term could apply, because:

Should be quite staraightforward to show & explain, if it's the way of things, .

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
In the end, it's just a term used to describe the Reiki phenomenon. I may have a different understanding of life and death than you, different spiritual understandings, different understandings of the words that make up the term. The term may be appropriate to explain Reiki for me and no one else. Your term may not adequately explain/summarize Reiki for me. Just like there are an infinite number of names for what many refer to as "God." To me ULFE means "loving-kindness," "compassion," "love," "the 'energy/phenomenon' that links everything in the Universe together on a most basic level," "the 'energy/phenomenon' that makes everything in the Universe function effeciently and to its highest degree on all levels" and so on. Perhaps it's best to simply call it "Reiki" and let people experience it themselves.

Cool. So it describes everything alive. I get that. How come then, if a virus is in my body, right throughout, and my body recieves Reiki, does the virus not benefit also?

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

Can you not just explain your common sense viewpoint to them? It's probably only when you're interacting on a perosnal level with a client that you'd need to do this. Unless you were advertising 'UDFE', hehe.

I do. But sometimes people become confused because Reiki can mean the energy we're refering to and also the method for applying it (Usui Reiki Ryoho). ULFE is defined in my courses and becomes a convenient term to make the destinction between Reiki the energy and Reiki the method.

I undertstand, and you're not alone in this opinion, .

If a person can understand english, and read it, if they read the whole text body in which Reiki is being mentioned, and stay focused on the reading, it's quite clear (to me) what's always meant by 'Reiki', . I kinda don't understand your expanation then, with respect. Give me some examples please, .

There's a really, really, simple explanation to my questions...

That the expereince of Reiki, is our divine spark creating a response. This is why it can be the starting process in the death of so many other things. As it serves us primarily, it's our divine spark. It explains why humans can harness it to aid in the destruciton of other life forms.

How 'divine spark' might tie in with Reiki, we're chatting bout in the symbols section, .

Big respect to your views bro, th eview i'm putting forward can be looked into, or, discarded, .


Take care
Wayne

Within Usui Reiki I studied under two different teachers. Most of what they taught me made no sense. It was the standard Reiki dogma. Takata generally refered to Reiki as "Univeral Energy." Does this truly embody all that Reiki is either? Not really. Usui supposedly said he didn't really understand how Reiki works either.

It seems to generally be considered, and I agree, that Reiki is SIMILAR to but not the same as Qi/Prana. Reiki does not simply refer to this sort of energy but it could almost be called a spiritual experience as well. "Divine Spark" if you prefer.

There is not a lot of research to EXPLAIN how Reiki works. But through understanding other similar concepts, through knowing Japanese to a degree and understanding the word "Reiki" as much as I can, and through experiencing it, I've come to the conclusions I have.

All I have seen is that Reiki CANNOT miraculously cure someone. It cannot heal someone on their death bed in the sense that we always seem to expect. It can only aid in the natural processes of the body. Could it directly aid in the natural processes of dying? Perhaps, but can we test this, no. If it could, and I am very open to this possibility, for me, ULFE would still be the appropriate term. But perhaps it is the APPLICATION of Reiki that is key here... we DO channel it to work for a person's Highest Good, to work according to their own will and desires, but this is WITHIN Reiki's abilities/restrictions. Likewise, if a person isn't naturally dying, and a person didn't want to die, would Reiki have any potential to be used in the aiding of death? No. It works both ways. This to me is why Reiki is considered safe.

Cool. So it describes everything alive. I get that. How come then, if a virus is in my body, right throughout, and my body recieves Reiki, does the virus not benefit also?

Because I don't believe Reiki is a passive method. The same reason I've found that I can treat a person's condition without treating the pain directly if they wish. The same reason you can target any specific issue. My experiences tell me we can direct Reiki according to an individual's wishes within Reiki's abilities (Reiki can do this and that in this situation, but I can choose to only apply it in this way - don't take this as me suggesting I can do with it whatever a client wishes ;] ).

We're a big ole parasite to the planet. Does sending Reiki to the Universe/planet treat us with Reiki? No. But could it indirectly affect us? Yes. Same with things within our bodies.

Direct, indirect, big deal, . A human uses something that some of them is suggesting is a life force all life shares, and they are harnessing it, via the vehicle of Reiki Ryoho, to start a process whereby countless multitudes of life forms are killed.

Please, if the bold script is wrong, show me exaclty where, word by word.

It's not that it's wrong, it's that it's incomplete: A human uses something that some of them is suggesting is a life force all life shares, and they are harnessing it, via the vehicle of Reiki Ryoho, to start a process whereby countless multitudes of life forms are killed, a process which may or may not be succesfully depending on if the body was already capable of healing this issue or not.

We are not deciding who lives and who dies. We're simply accelerating a natural process taking place within the body and helping a person through the issue on various other levels. At a certain point, the body would no longer be capable of this and there would be nothing we can do. Perhaps medicine could help, but not Reiki.

Wabi, with the greatest respect, oyu're gonna have to reread my posts. I specifically said 'Reiki was a catalyst', and have emphasised this in PM also. Check what the word means, cause you keep saying 'directly' in response. Which is something i never sugested happened.

I didn't say directly. I said indirectly. I didn't suggest that that meant you felt it directly caused death. I understand what "catalyst" means.

Question: if Reiki was directly causing the death of these organisms, would you continue to use Reiki?

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote: Usui supposedly said he didn't really understand how Reiki works either.

Who said that?

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
It seems to generally be considered, and I agree, that Reiki is SIMILAR to but not the same as Qi/Prana.

What's 'generally considered' doesn't mean any one thing actually is, . We both surely know, the multitudes of practitioners prefer to recite whatever everyone else is, not many like to stand on their own and give an alternate view, .

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

Cool. So it describes everything alive. I get that. How come then, if a virus is in my body, right throughout, and my body recieves Reiki, does the virus not benefit also?

Because I don't believe Reiki is a passive method. The same reason I've found that I can treat a person's condition without treating the pain directly if they wish. The same reason you can target any specific issue. My experiences tell me we can direct Reiki according to an individual's wishes within Reiki's abilities (Reiki can do this and that in this situation, but I can choose to only apply it in this way - don't take this as me suggesting I can do with it whatever a client wishes ;] ).

So, although the life force you're using in Reiki, is obviously gonna encompass a human body, and by definition, the same life force (ULFE) must surely be around the virus inside the body, THAT life force (ULFE)all life has has no benefit to the virus!

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
We're a big ole parasite to the planet. Does sending Reiki to the Universe/planet treat us with Reiki? No. But could it indirectly affect us? Yes. Same with things within our bodies.

Before you prove that point, you gotta prove that 'sending' Reiki to the planet even has an affect. Then we can see bout the rest of that sentence, .

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

Direct, indirect, big deal, . A human uses something that some of them is suggesting is a life force all life shares, and they are harnessing it, via the vehicle of Reiki Ryoho, to start a process whereby countless multitudes of life forms are killed.

Please, if the bold script is wrong, show me exaclty where, word by word.

It's not that it's wrong, it's that it's incomplete: A human uses something that some of them is suggesting is a life force all life shares, and they are harnessing it, via the vehicle of Reiki Ryoho, to start a process whereby countless multitudes of life forms are killed, a process which may or may not be succesfully depending on if the body was already capable of healing this issue or not.

It's incomplete! I thought you & I were solely speaking of the actual effect of Reiki on other life forms? Not, the possible non-effect. My italic text is solely about what happens when there is an effect, as has been my whole discussion.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
We are not deciding who lives and who dies. We're simply accelerating a natural process taking place within the body and helping a person through the issue on various other levels. At a certain point, the body would no longer be capable of this and there would be nothing we can do. Perhaps medicine could help, but not Reiki.

Yeah, this is a standard belief. Sometimes it's wish to try to think outta the box, .

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

Wabi, with the greatest respect, oyu're gonna have to reread my posts. I specifically said 'Reiki was a catalyst', and have emphasised this in PM also. Check what the word means, cause you keep saying 'directly' in response. Which is something i never sugested happened.

I didn't say directly. I said indirectly. I didn't suggest that that meant you felt it directly caused death. I understand what "catalyst" means.

Yes you did.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
But again, I don't think Reiki can kill directly.

Post 27.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
I have not seen or experienced anything that suggests Reiki can directly cause death in any way - if you know otherwise please let me know.

Post 30.

You also said in in your PM of 15.26 today, .

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
Question: if Reiki was directly causing the death of these organisms, would you continue to use Reiki?

Like i've already said, 'directly, indirectly, big deal.

No probs answering a question, . Of course i'd continue to use Reiki. I do continue to use Reiki. It doesn't matter whether it's directly killing them, or starting a process that does. I'm here to live you know! And i'm not gonna sit and take the swine flu, just to let the germs have a good time!

This is my spark of divinity though. And since it's mine, if i decide to use it to start a process that kills trillions of other life forms, and it's to benefit myselfr or another then that's the way it is. The way i go about that within my spirit, and heart is another thing.

I'm taking full responsibility for the life forms dying, and don't care how politically incorrect it is in the 'Reiki world' to suggest this happens, .

BTW, many thanks for chatting with me, i feel this has been a real good subject to have been aired. .

Take care
Wayne

Who said that?

If we believe the Hikkei are truly Usui's own words as it's been suggested, then...

"How does Usui Reiki Ryoho work?

I did not receive this method from anyone else. Nor did I train or study to develop supernatural powers. While fasting, I had a mystical experience - I felt an intense energy - and with it, the realization that I had received the spiritual gift of healing.

So, even though I am the founder of this method, I find it hard to explain it clearly. Physicians and scholars have been researching such phenomena, but as yet, it has been difficult to reach a scientific explanation. One day, there will be a scientific explanation."

And if they AREN'T his own words, I've never seen any quote from him explaining exactly how it does work in all its subtleties, either.

Before you prove that point, you gotta prove that 'sending' Reiki to the planet even has an affect. Then we can see bout the rest of that sentence, .

Can we prove that Reiki has any effect on ANYTHING, really? I mean, it really could all just be placebo. The mind is more powerful than we give it credit.

Do you not believe in Reiki for plants?

So, although the life force you're using in Reiki, is obviously gonna encompass a human body, and by definition, the same life force (ULFE) must surely be around the virus inside the body, THAT life force (ULFE)all life has has no benefit to the virus!

I thought the quote you were responding to explains this.

When you use Reiki, do you have no control over it at all? Some people have recieved Reiki and ended up being forced to deal with emotional issues far too quickly. I take an active role and avoid certain issues, or control how much Reiki is sent. In many techniques in Usui's system, it's even suggest that you stop when you feel enough has been achieved for a particular session. If a person is dying, I can specifically send Reiki for emotional support/pain relief. COULD I passively send it and just let it float around and be gobbled up by whatever wanted it? Yes. And if I did this, could it then feed the bacteria too? Yes.

If the pain in my toe doesn't improve when I perform Seiheki Chiryo-ho for a completely nonrelated issue, the why would the bacteria recieve Reiki either unless I directed it at the bacteria?

Yes you did.

I meant in what you quoted. I said I don't feel Reiki kills directly, I said I think Reiki can kill indirectly. That doesn't mean I'm suggesting you think it kills directly, or don't, or whatnot. You asked for an explanation of something and I offered mine.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

Who said that?

If we believe the Hikkei are truly Usui's own words as it's been suggested...

What makes you assume the words in the Hikkei are his?

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
And if they AREN'T his own words, I've never seen any quote from him explaining exactly how it does work in all its subtleties, either.

have you looked? If so, where?

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

Before you prove that point, you gotta prove that 'sending' Reiki to the planet even has an affect. Then we can see bout the rest of that sentence, .

Can we prove that Reiki has any effect on ANYTHING, really? I mean, it really could all just be placebo. The mind is more powerful than we give it credit.

Ok, i'll rephrase to make it easier. Before you can sufficiently quantify your point, please quantify that 'sending' Reiki to the planet has an effect.

It should be easy to show, .

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
Do you not believe in Reiki for plants?

Do i beleive Reiki helps plants? It's not my field, hehe. Get it?

I've enough to deal with trying to undertstand core concepts to do with human's expereinces.

Anyhow, does Reiki help plants? yeah, it might. You seem to like buddhism. Ever heard of mindfullness? Ever heard of HSZSN meaning something to do with mindfullness?

best effects of Reiki are to be had when a person recoqnises mindfullness is key to Reiki, as it is in all spirituality, and when they focus someone or something specifically.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

So, although the life force you're using in Reiki, is obviously gonna encompass a human body, and by definition, the same life force (ULFE) must surely be around the virus inside the body, THAT life force (ULFE)all life has has no benefit to the virus!

I thought the quote you were responding to explains this.

It doesn't. Tell me the specifics how it works please. Why it works? In what way does it work?

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
When you use Reiki, do you have no control over it at all? Some people have recieved Reiki and ended up being forced to deal with emotional issues far too quickly. I take an active role and avoid certain issues, or control how much Reiki is sent. In many techniques in Usui's system, it's even suggest that you stop when you feel enough has been achieved for a particular session. If a person is dying, I can specifically send Reiki for emotional support/pain relief. COULD I passively send it and just let it float around and be gobbled up by whatever wanted it? Yes. And if I did this, could it then feed the bacteria too? Yes.

So you're telling me, that when you treat someone with a virus, even though the virus is right throughout the body, you have the ability to not allow the virus to interact with the ULFE, but only the human body?

Please tell me how you do that.

Please tell me how you know what the virus does & doesn't do.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
If the pain in my toe doesn't improve when I perform Seiheki Chiryo-ho for a completely nonrelated issue, the why would the bacteria recieve Reiki either unless I directed it at the bacteria?

I never said the bacteria would recieve Reiki. I suggested you don't assume it wouldn't.

Again, i'm not talking either about 'directed', 'directing' , 'directly'. I'm talking about Reiki being a catalyst.

and your analogy of the 'big toe', is inaccurate. It seemed to me i was saying about treating someone that had a virus/germs, such as swine flu. So it'd hardly be a 'non-related issue', since that's the reason for doing Reiki, hehe.


anyhow, i always respond to a question, . Reiki is all around us at all times. This is why we don't need any other protection. And it's also why, folks assume Reiki goes where it's needed. In close proximity of the client, they are expereincing Reiki from more than our hands, eyes or breath.

there's a field of Reiki around you in a constant, this is why the treatment could not ignore the bacteria.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

Yes you did.

I meant in what you quoted. I said I don't feel Reiki kills directly, I said I think Reiki can kill indirectly. That doesn't mean I'm suggesting you think it kills directly, or don't, or whatnot. You asked for an explanation of something and I offered mine.

Like i keep pointing out. Directly, indirectly, it's still a catalyst for the death of life forms. Or is it not?

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

thanks for staying awake long enough to share your views. It's good stuff for the forum, .

Take care
Wayne

Milarepa wrote:Hi James,
Good point. ULE must be a part of me also, and i a part of the larger IT. Why the need for something to enter me that is already within me.

If Reiki is the "divine spark" of which you speak. Can the above statement not be applied to it as well?
If we can re-balance ourselves and others with Reiki. How can this be an untruth in regard to ULFE? I do not believe that Reiki and ULFE to be composed of the same things...not at all. Yet the term we use to describe both for lack of a better one is "energy". That`s a similarity, a parallel...Hence my question.

Milarepa wrote:
Another thing. If it's ULE we are using, how does that fit in with things we are meant to be 'protecting' ourself against? These 'negative energies' must also be ULE. The very thing we are 'channeling'? Hmm.

Take care
Wayne

Reminds me of..."It`s not the thing...It`s your relationship to it..."

What makes you assume the words in the Hikkei are his?

If we believe the Hikkei are truly Usui's own words as it's been suggested, then...
............
And if they AREN'T his own words, I've never seen any quote from him explaining exactly how it does work in all its subtleties, either.

It is from the Q/A section and has been suggested that they are his words. I am not saying they are. I said if we assume they are. And then I addressed "if they are not" as well.

Are you being difficult for the sake of it?

have you looked? If so, where?

If you know something I don't, simply tell me instead of playing this game. If you know of a direct, verifiable quote from Usui himself in which he explains precisely how Reiki works on all levels then please show me. I am not here to prove my position, but to learn.

Ok, i'll rephrase to make it easier. Before you can sufficiently quantify your point, please quantify that 'sending' Reiki to the planet has an effect.

And I'll rephrase: please prove that sending Reiki to a person has an effect.

Their headache goes away? Ok. Was that necessarily Reiki? Could be any number of things, including placebo. If I send Reiki to the Earth and see my garden growing better than my neighbours' (and people do use Reiki on plants and claim to see effects), then is it necessarily Reiki? No.

If we were able to prove that anything directly benefited from Reiki then Reiki would be a standard medical practice.

Anyhow, does Reiki help plants? yeah, it might.

Plants are part of the earth.

So you're telling me, that when you treat someone with a virus, even though the virus is right throughout the body, you have the ability to not allow the virus to interact with the ULFE, but only the human body?

Please tell me how you do that.

Do you treat pregnant women?

Also, a virus isn't PART of the body. As well, it isn't ALIVE. If you're unsure a plant can receive Reiki, do you believe a virus can? As well, if you send Reiki to a person who is touching another living being, does that mean you're sending Reiki to both? If we have no control over how Reiki is NOT applied is that not pretty damned dangerous? Yet do you not intend that Reiki work for your Highest Good or your client's prior to each session? Why? Is that not controlling it to an extent?

Please tell me how you know what the virus does & doesn't do.

How do you know "what the human does and doesn't do" as a result of Reiki as well?

I never said the bacteria would recieve Reiki. I suggested you don't assume it wouldn't.

Basically at this point you are saying you have no opinions yourself and are just challenging absolutely everything I say for the sake of it, no matter what my opinion is.

I have seen you say "I know this because of my own personal experience." All I can tell you is what I've come to understand through my own personal experiences, inside and outside of Reiki.

So you're telling me, that when you treat someone with a virus, even though the virus is right throughout the body, you have the ability to not allow the virus to interact with the ULFE, but only the human body?

Please tell me how you do that.

How do you use Reiki only for YOUR Highest Good if it's inherent in all of us?

Reiki is all around us at all times. This is why we don't need any other protection. And it's also why, folks assume Reiki goes where it's needed. In close proximity of the client, they are expereincing Reiki from more than our hands, eyes or breath.

there's a field of Reiki around you in a constant, this is why the treatment could not ignore the bacteria.

Huh? Then what is the need to channel Reiki at all? It's around us and in us no matter what. Are we not adding Reiki though when we practice it? But we can't direct it? Yet we direct it at a certain person, and it doesn't just eminate from us in all directions and go to everyone around us unless that's how we choose to practice it. Why can we direct it to this degree but not in the way which I'm refering to?

I've enough to deal with trying to undertstand core concepts to do with human's expereinces. Anyhow, does Reiki help plants? yeah, it might.

Wait, are you saying plants have a Divine Spark then? Otherwise...

Again, i'm not talking either about 'directed', 'directing' , 'directly'. I'm talking about Reiki being a catalyst.

Please define "catalyst" from your understanding.

"2 : an agent that provokes or speeds significant change or action"

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

And I'll rephrase: please prove that sending Reiki to a person has an effect.

Their headache goes away? Ok. Was that necessarily Reiki? Could be any number of things, including placebo. If I send Reiki to the Earth and see my garden growing better than my neighbours' (and people do use Reiki on plants and claim to see effects), then is it necessarily Reiki? No.

If we were able to prove that anything directly benefited from Reiki then Reiki would be a standard medical practice.

In controlled experiments at the University of Arizona, by Dr. Melinda Connor, Dr. Gary Schwartz and their teams, they have achieved verifiable results that a healer (and a reiki healer for that) can have a direct effect on plant tissue, e.coli bacteria, rat tissue, and more, and as such disproven the placebo effect by a great deal.
Their research papers have been published and "white-papered" by the NIH in the US.
The studies are ongoing and there are replicant studies being done in Europe as well as the US.

First thing they had to do was make sure they could test the healer - was he/she for real - They used a Triaxial ELF (extra low frequency) Magnetic Field Meter, and found that the healers could affect the oscillatory rate of this extra low frequency magnetic wave.
The healers could change the baseline reading and produce an effect. This also proved that the energy isn´t running all the time, but there is a mechanism of control (on/off switch).
On Plant tissue, they used bio-photon imaging to see if the healer could both heal and kill tissue - and yes the results were very significant.
on e.coli and rat tissue, same results.

These research findings are now helping to give credit to the healers work - now that its measurable and quantifiable - and as such it will move into the medical practice more and more.
anyway this was a comment on the placebo and on proof that the healer has an effect.
There are today lot of research papers that have been "white-papered" by the NIH in the US, so the factual evidence is out there.

f

Reikijim wrote:

Milarepa wrote:Hi James,
Good point. ULE must be a part of me also, and i a part of the larger IT. Why the need for something to enter me that is already within me.

If Reiki is the "divine spark" of which you speak. Can the above statement not be applied to it as well?
If we can re-balance ourselves and others with Reiki. How can this be an untruth in regard to ULFE? I do not believe that Reiki and ULFE to be composed of the same things...not at all. Yet the term we use to describe both for lack of a better one is "energy". That`s a similarity, a parallel...Hence my question.

Not sure what you're getting at here bro? My comment was to show doubt on Reiki entering from outside of us. So of course, i'm alluding to my divine spark.

take care
Wayne

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

Are you being difficult for the sake of it?

Not for the sake of it, no. I', highlighting Reiki dogma. practitioenrs largely simple recite as if it's fact, and when it's asked for it to be quantified that's certainly not as clear, . This is what happens generally, so it's not only my opnion of this chat, .

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

have you looked? If so, where?

If you know something I don't, simply tell me instead of playing this game.

My whole vein of chat with you has been to hopefully get you to look at things some more. I'm not gonna go the work for you, .

Stay relaxed, there's nothing personal going on. Look at how many smilies i include in our chat. And i've called you 'bro', 'buddy', also. I can't show you my actual smile on my face wabi, .

If i didn't feel Hito ni shinsetsu ni was important i wouldn't be spending my time in this chat. illustrating assumptions, and dogma in Reiki, is 2nd best to thinking and going finding out for oneself, .

If i tell you everything i mean, chances are it's gonna be dismissed, because i said it. If though, you go discover the things for yourself, there's more chance you'll lend more weight to it. The end result is the same, but i don't want you casting aside info, just cause i've took an opposing view. This is why i'm not going into great detail, although, i'm touching on many things here, .

Good luck in your journey, i really mean that!

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

Ok, i'll rephrase to make it easier. Before you can sufficiently quantify your point, please quantify that 'sending' Reiki to the planet has an effect.

And I'll rephrase: please prove that sending Reiki to a person has an effect.

I havn't mentioned sending to a person. Please quantify your earlier point, thanks. .

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

So you're telling me, that when you treat someone with a virus, even though the virus is right throughout the body, you have the ability to not allow the virus to interact with the ULFE, but only the human body?

Please tell me how you do that.

I never said the bacteria would recieve Reiki. I suggested you don't assume it wouldn't.

Basically at this point you are saying you have no opinions yourself and are just challenging absolutely everything I say for the sake of it, no matter what my opinion is.

I'm saying i've no opinions when i actually say it, . All i said was i'd not specificallly said the bacteria would recieve Reiki, at that point in our chat.

i'm also not challenging everything you say 'for the sake of it'. I'm asking difficult questions becuase the answers are diffcult to come by. This is cause practitioners take on this dogma as if it's all fact, and they don't think bout it. And when someon askes, 'ok, show me', it's not that easy to. .

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
I have seen you say "I know this because of my own personal experience." All I can tell you is what I've come to understand through my own personal experiences, inside and outside of Reiki.

Cool, so tell me specifically how?

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

So you're telling me, that when you treat someone with a virus, even though the virus is right throughout the body, you have the ability to not allow the virus to interact with the ULFE, but only the human body?

Please tell me how you do that.

How do you use Reiki only for YOUR Highest Good if it's inherent in all of us?

You're not gonna tell me how you do that then?

I'll respond to your question anyhow, . If i treat myself, i an using my divine spark to create an expereince, we call it Reiki. If i treat another, my divine spark creates a response in them, called Reiki.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

Reiki is all around us at all times. This is why we don't need any other protection. And it's also why, folks assume Reiki goes where it's needed. In close proximity of the client, they are expereincing Reiki from more than our hands, eyes or breath.

there's a field of Reiki around you in a constant, this is why the treatment could not ignore the bacteria.

Huh? Then what is the need to channel Reiki at all?

Because, when we enter into the act of Reiki Ryoho, as we're interacting with our divine spark on a more conscious level, we generate spirit more.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
It's around us and in us no matter what. Are we not adding Reiki though when we practice it?

We're generating our spirit, our divien spark, . This is why the more we expereince Reiki, it touches all areas of our life.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
But we can't direct it? Yet we direct it at a certain person, and it doesn't just eminate from us in all directions and go to everyone around us unless that's how we choose to practice it. Why can we direct it to this degree but not in the way which I'm refering to?

I never once said we can't direct Reiki, . You gotta read what i'm actually saying wabi, .

Reiki emanates out from us in a constant, at all times. In practice, it enamantes mostly from the hands. So, during the treatment, although it is around us at all times, we can direct the experience more with our hands. If we're in cloose proximity to another in particular, as their whole body is within our 'field', some practitioners think that then Reiki goes where it's needed, it's not that exactly. It's just that the client is within the practitoioners 'field'.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

Again, i'm not talking either about 'directed', 'directing' , 'directly'. I'm talking about Reiki being a catalyst.

Please define "catalyst" from your understanding.

"2 : an agent that provokes or speeds significant change or action"

You got it. .

Take care
Wayne

Not for the sake of it, no. I', highlighting Reiki dogma. practitioenrs largely simple recite as if it's fact

And as you know I'm very much against this as well and most of my thoughts on the main concepts within Reiki go completely against the grain of common dogma. I simply stated that if we believe the Hikkei are his words, which has been suggested, then he said "____." If we don't believe they are his words, then I still have no found a quote from him that DOES explain it. There is no dogma here. Do you think Usui understood Reiki right down to a scientific level?

My whole vein of chat with you has been to hopefully get you to look at things some more. I'm not gonna go the work for you,

I have studied Reiki for a fair amount of time now through various books, the internet, through studying other similiar practices, through my understanding of Life through Buddhism, through my own experiences with Reiki, through various teachers... as well as discussing it with people like yourself.

I have never seen a verified quote from Usui directly that explains how Reiki works in every sense of the word.

Refusing to tell me whether or not such a quote exists while suggesting that you know one does (or that one doesn't and I would be searching in vein?) is not helpful. You asked me to provide a quote, and I did--from the Hikkei. I made sure to note that they are only SAID to be his words. Now, if *you* know of one, please also provide it... this is me doing research of another form: asking someone who apparently has knowledge I do not to direct me to a proper source.

If i tell you everything i mean, chances are it's gonna be dismissed, because i said it. If though, you go discover the things for yourself, there's more chance you'll lend more weight to it.

I'm asking you to provide the quote you're refering to. I don't generally dismiss verified quotes as not being by the supposed author.

I havn't mentioned sending to a person. Please quantify your earlier point, thanks. .

But I'm mentioning it now. As I said, I could tell you that in sending it to the Earth my grass grows faster and greener than my neighbours', or my potted plants grow larger and brighter than the ones I don't send Reiki to. Is that necessarily Reiki? It could be, or it could be any number of factors. What if I said that when I reiki the Earth in my garden, the dirt, the flowers, the pebbles, the objects... there's a sense of serenity and peace in just sitting in that garden? Bow can I prove Reiki has an effect when science doesn't understand Reiki? Just as we cannot prove Reiki has any direct effect beyond placebo on ANYTHING. If you cannot prove the effects on humans are beyond placebo, how can I prove what you're asking? What can I say besides "buy two potted plants yourself and try it"?

Do you use Reiki on situations, objects, rooms? Did you note a difference?

i'm also not challenging everything you say 'for the sake of it'. I'm asking difficult questions becuase the answers are diffcult to come by. This is cause practitioners take on this dogma as if it's all fact,

Please don't refer to what I believe as dogma. I've explained that what I believe contradicts everything I was taught, contradicts nearly every standard piece of dogma associated with Reiki, and that I came to my conclusions through personal experience. Does that mean I interpreted it correctly? Not necessarily. I imagine, as always, my perspective and understanding will continue to shift. But in challenging every syllable I speak ("who said the Hikkei are Usui's words?" when I clearly said if one were to assume, and explained "and if one were not to assume"), you honestly haven't asked me anything I haven't already asked myself.

It seems your purpose is to challenge only my beliefs, not your own.

Cool, so tell me specifically how?

How what? How I came to those conclusions through my personal experiences?

You're not gonna tell me how you do that then?

I'll respond to your question anyhow, . If i treat myself, i an using my divine spark to create an expereince, we call it Reiki. If i treat another, my divine spark creates a response in them, called Reiki.

And that's a sufficient answer? What is a plant's Divine Spark?

Have you never treated someone for a specific issue? The symbols themselves aid us in directing/focusing Reiki in specific ways. I'm not "not telling you how to do it" - you do it with intent and focus in the same way you use Reiki at all (symbols, hand positions, Second Pillar). Again, a virus is not literally a part of us.

We can apply Reiki for specific issues but ultimately a person can subconsciously or consciously reject Reiki. They may benefit only in ways they're ready to/want to. Right? So they get emotional help through Reiki but the pain in their knee doesn't go away. So if a person's will is that the virus inside them does not benefit from Reiki, why is that too farfetched?

I never once said we can't direct Reiki, . You gotta read what i'm actually saying wabi, .

Reiki emanates out from us in a constant, at all times. In practice, it enamantes mostly from the hands. So, during the treatment, although it is around us at all times, we can direct the experience more with our hands. If we're in cloose proximity to another in particular, as their whole body is within our 'field', some practitioners think that then Reiki goes where it's needed, it's not that exactly. It's just that the client is within the practitoioners 'field'.

So... what if a person is not in "our field"? Then you literally are directing it to only specific areas? If you believe we CAN direct it, then why can we not direct it in the way that I describe i.e. to the person but not the virus.

You got it.

Dude, I know I understand the word "catalyst." But you keep claiming I don't.

Finally: I am only suggesting how I view Reiki to work on this one Level. In truth, Reiki goes beyond ULFE, which I described in my earlier post. Reiki also refers to a specific system (that INCLUDES the application of ULFE in my opinion, but goes beyond that... it is meditation, LIVING BY the Gokkai, spiritual development through the techniques offered, developing universal compassion...), which when combined with "Reiki, the energy," helps us uncover our inherent "Reiki, the state of being" which you refer to as our "Divine Spark." Reiki the energy helps us more effectively BE Reiki. Reiki the practice helps us more effectively DO AND BE Reiki. Being Reiki helps us more effective Do Reiki. Etc. etc.

You say, "how can it be ULFE when it aids in killing billions of lifeforms" - lifeforms that, given time, would have died anyway. In truth EVERYTHING on this planet COMES from the planet, including medications you take to kill said bacteria/viruses. You say that's a funny way for the Universe to work, killing billions of lifeforms over just one, yet in us simply existing we destroy trillions of lifeforms. And on the other side of the spectrum, there are naturally occuring pandemics that result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and animals. This is the way the Universe works. It's not good, it's not bad, it just is. Will there come a day when you and Reiki can't beat the virus? Yep.

I know you called me "buddy" and smiled a lot - there's no personal issue with you. It's just that challenging everything I say down to each stroke of punctuation I use, refusing to offer sources you supposedly have containing invaluable information on Reiki, etc. is just not what I'm looking for in a discussion. I don't mind my beliefs being challenged. I don't mind being hit with mindblowing insights that change my own views. But this discussion has just been more exhausting than anything and hasn't led to anything productive for me. It seems I just have to keep explaining and explaining my own beliefs, provide proof, but when it comes to your views your own personal experiences are enough.

So let me turn the tables for a minute. You say in another Thread:

In this respect at least, all living things are connected via the 'collective' divine. distance doesn't exist then, as far as Reiki & healing go.

Can I not ask you all the same questions you've asked me? Now what exactly is the "Collective Divine"? If it's the Collective Divine, why can it be a catalyst for death, the death of billions over just one? Why can you direct it to benefit just you? Why is this any different than what I'm discussing?

Hi fshortt,

In controlled experiments at the University of Arizona, by Dr. Melinda Connor, Dr. Gary Schwartz and their teams, they have achieved verifiable results that a healer (and a reiki healer for that) can have a direct effect on plant tissue, e.coli bacteria, rat tissue, and more, and as such disproven the placebo effect by a great deal.

I'm not sure why you quoted me specifically because if the experiment proves that it has a direct effect on plants then that proves my point as well: plants are part of the Earth.

I will go look this up in a minute.

This also proved that the energy isn´t running all the time, but there is a mechanism of control (on/off switch).

Wayne, didn't you say it's always emanating from us? Also, what is this energy then?

Also: If Reiki is simply our Divine Spark, and everything has one, and we're all connected by Reiki, then how are you not activating "the bacteria's" Divine Spark too? (Same question you asked me).

On Plant tissue, they used bio-photon imaging to see if the healer could both heal and kill tissue - and yes the results were very significant.
on e.coli and rat tissue, same results.

Is this the site you're refering to?: http://www.innerknowing.net/healing.html

I'd like to see the actual study but can't find it. Do you know where I could?

In any event the thing about killing tissue isn't related to Reiki. It was a seperate study, unless I'm missing something.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
Do you think Usui understood Reiki right down to a scientific level?

I'm fairly sure he understood it more than you & I.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
I have never seen a verified quote from Usui directly that explains how Reiki works in every sense of the word.

Refusing to tell me whether or not such a quote exists while suggesting that you know one does (or that one doesn't and I would be searching in vein?) is not helpful.

firstly, i never once said one existed either way. I asked have you checked. And if so, where.

It's not important if a person searches in vain, the'll make their own mind up bout that. What's important is that they actually go search in the first place.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
You asked me to provide a quote, and I did--from the Hikkei. I made sure to note that they are only SAID to be his words. Now, if *you* know of one, please also provide it... this is me doing research of another form: asking someone who apparently has knowledge I do not to direct me to a proper source.

what i really said to you was, 'who said that?' . A name would've sufficed.

I've already helped you, by suggesting you don't beleive the hikkei, just cause so many others do.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

If i tell you everything i mean, chances are it's gonna be dismissed, because i said it. If though, you go discover the things for yourself, there's more chance you'll lend more weight to it.

I'm asking you to provide the quote you're refering to. I don't generally dismiss verified quotes as not being by the supposed author.

You don't? Well, i'm the author of my own words, and i bet you havn't went to check anything i've said here.

My quoted comment was a general one, btw.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

I havn't mentioned sending to a person. Please quantify your earlier point, thanks. .

If you cannot prove the effects on humans are beyond placebo, how can I prove what you're asking?

I re-phrased from the issue you had with 'proof'.

Read through these...
Source: http://www.aetw.org/reiki_research.html

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
Do you use Reiki on situations, objects, rooms?

No i don't.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

i'm also not challenging everything you say 'for the sake of it'. I'm asking difficult questions becuase the answers are diffcult to come by. This is cause practitioners take on this dogma as if it's all fact,

Please don't refer to what I believe as dogma. I've explained that what I believe contradicts everything I was taught, contradicts nearly every standard piece of dogma associated with Reiki, and that I came to my conclusions through personal experience.

And there's me thinking it was only myself in this chat that was debating agaisnt the domgatic view of ULFE, and, where Reiki comes from, and what happens in a treatment. Apologies, hehe.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
It seems your purpose is to challenge only my beliefs, not your own.

Think so? I choose to challenge my beliefs every time i post my unpopular views on the interent, hehe. Cause i watch them being challenged. If they're wrong, i change them publicly. Been doing that for 4 years now, .

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

Cool, so tell me specifically how?

How what? How I came to those conclusions through my personal experiences?

The specific experiences that have made you come to the conlcusions you have.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

You're not gonna tell me how you do that then?

I'll respond to your question anyhow, . If i treat myself, i an using my divine spark to create an expereince, we call it Reiki. If i treat another, my divine spark creates a response in them, called Reiki.

And that's a sufficient answer? What is a plant's Divine Spark?

A plants? I'm finding it hard to keep this focussed. You'd asked me about humans..here...

How do you use Reiki only for YOUR Highest Good if it's inherent in all of us?

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
Have you never treated someone for a specific issue? The symbols themselves aid us in directing/focusing Reiki in specific ways. I'm not "not telling you how to do it" - you do it with intent and focus in the same way you use Reiki at all (symbols, hand positions, Second Pillar). Again, a virus is not literally a part of us.

sure, so when you treat someone for a vial infection, Reiki isn't a catalyst for the infections death? Per your own recent dictionary description?

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

I never once said we can't direct Reiki, . You gotta read what i'm actually saying wabi, .

Reiki emanates out from us in a constant, at all times. In practice, it enamantes mostly from the hands. So, during the treatment, although it is around us at all times, we can direct the experience more with our hands. If we're in cloose proximity to another in particular, as their whole body is within our 'field', some practitioners think that then Reiki goes where it's needed, it's not that exactly. It's just that the client is within the practitoioners 'field'.

So... what if a person is not in "our field"? Then you literally are directing it to only specific areas? If you believe we CAN direct it, then why can we not direct it in the way that I describe i.e. to the person but not the virus.

Wabi, if you read what i've wrote, i never once said that we can direct Reiki or not direct it, to kill the virus. that's not the issue.

Please READ what i've said. Reiki is a catalyst to the destruction of life forms. direct/indirect doesn't have a bearing neccesarily on the use of a catalyst.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

You got it.

Dude, I know I understand the word "catalyst." But you keep claiming I don't.

Then what has this chat been about? All i claimed was Reiki was a catalyst to killing life forms. As in...

"2 : an agent that provokes or speeds significant change or action" .

Reiki can provoke or speed singificant change or action within a humans immune system. It doesn't have to be direct.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

I know you called me "buddy" and smiled a lot - there's no personal issue with you. It's just that challenging everything I say down to each stroke of punctuation I use, refusing to offer sources you supposedly have containing invaluable information on Reiki, etc.

When i claim specifically to have a source about something, ask me. when i claim something, ask me how i know it.

Be prepared though, i'm prepared to go into some detial, but there's no way i'n gonna do something you aren't doing yourself. I.E. going researching what i'm saying is true or false.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
is just not what I'm looking for in a discussion. I don't mind my beliefs being challenged. I don't mind being hit with mindblowing insights that change my own views. But this discussion has just been more exhausting than anything and hasn't led to anything productive for me. It seems I just have to keep explaining and explaining my own beliefs, provide proof, but when it comes to your views your own personal experiences are enough.

You havn't responded to 3/4 of my questions in your claims. I've responded to your question about 9/10 times. Go check, before you levy something at me bro, .

re-visit our chat in a month or two time, witrh fresh eyes, .

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
So let me turn the tables for a minute. You say in another Thread:

In this respect at least, all living things are connected via the 'collective' divine. distance doesn't exist then, as far as Reiki & healing go.

Can I not ask you all the same questions you've asked me?

You can. so ask.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
Now what exactly is the "Collective Divine"?

The creative force that binds all things. That force that quantum physics is suggesting binds you & I together.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
If it's the Collective Divine, why can it be a catalyst for death, the death of billions over just one?

Because, while all is ultimately one, within that, there are different identities. A human is the same as a rock, essentially. Yet not. While a rock doesn't experience reality as we do, we don't experience a rock's reality as it does. There is differentiating aspects of the whole.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
Why can you direct it to benefit just you? Why is this any different than what I'm discussing?

I can direct it to benefit me becuase it's my own spark of divinity that starts the process.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
Why is this any different than what I'm discussing?

becuase ULFE by it's very definition, is a general term & concept that encompasses even AIDS. My divine spark goes much further in classifying things, and explains in one sentence many questions.

Keep the questions coming, it's good stuff! .


Take care
Wayne

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

This also proved that the energy isn´t running all the time, but there is a mechanism of control (on/off switch).

Wayne, didn't you say it's always emanating from us?

yes.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
Also, what is this energy then?

What energy? that the doctors were measuring. I wasn't there of course. Havn't read the paper either, yet you want me to comment on the study. thanks, hehe.

what way could they measure? Frequency/intensity perhaps. where they measuring only hands? Did the machines cover the whole body area?

didn't i suggest that Reiki is from the hands mostly? Obviously a person can stop Reiki from the hands at any time.

You & I where talking about a treatment. where we've switched the 'on' swtich on i presume, hehe.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
Also: If Reiki is simply our Divine Spark, and everything has one, and we're all connected by Reiki, then how are you not activating "the bacteria's" Divine Spark too? (Same question you asked me).

Did i say everything had a divine spark? I can't remember that, i might have, sp please show me, .

Even if bacteria did have a divine spark, in one sentence...

reason why we treat us, and not the bacteria, is because it's our divine spark going into action.

I did say this earlier to you, .

take care
Wayne

I'm fairly sure he understood it more than you & I.

Where did I say otherwise? Does that mean he understood it in a scientific way? I doubt it.

firstly, i never once said one existed either way. I asked have you checked. And if so, where.

It's not important if a person searches in vain, the'll make their own mind up bout that. What's important is that they actually go search in the first place.

By the fact that I provided a quote and then said, as those may NOT be his words, that I have never found any quote from him that suggests he understood it on all levels (including scientifically), that implies that I have searched. Have I perhaps not searched in the right place yet? Maybe. Do you really think you're helping anything here? You just suggest you don't know if one exists or not either... so perhaps you should focus on the search yourself for a while before suggesting I do so more. And if you DO know one way or the other, and you're refusing to tell me (along as WHERE this quote can be found if it DOES exist) then you are really not helping anyone here and are frankly deliberately wasting my time.

what i really said to you was, 'who said that?' . A name would've sufficed.

I've already helped you, by suggesting you don't beleive the hikkei, just cause so many others do.

Once again please read what I have said. Where did I say I believe the Hikkei to be his words?

You keep using phrases like "I've already helped you," "I'm trying to get you to think outside the dogma" etc. etc. as if you're here to Enlighten me. That's nice and all but comes off as very egotistical. I thank you for assistance but as you can see, it hasn't helped me in any way but in practicing maintaining my composure. I have asked the questions you've brought up myself. I have a personal understanding of Reiki that perhaps I cannot explain well enough to you. But it makes sense to me. Again, I saw you say in another Thread that you KNEW Reiju wasn't permanent and Attunements were through "personal experience." Why is that enough for you but not for me?

Also, I said "Usui SUPPOSEDLY didn't understand how it work on ALL levels either" - you asked "Who said that?" - well obviously I was suggesting there was a possibilty that Usui did. "A name would have sufficed" - I provided the "name" - the Hikkei.

You don't? Well, i'm the author of my own words, and i bet you havn't went to check anything i've said here.

I'm sorry but I really feel like you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I asked you to provide a quote if you had one and you said you "wouldn't do the work for me." This was a direct response to what I said, as you quoted me. And no, I don't. Please read what I said again: "I don't generally dismiss verified quotes as not being by the supposed author." That means I don't argue that, when verified, a quote is actually from a person it claims to be quoting.

Seriously, I just want you to look for a second at how this convo literally went:

" Usui supposedly said he didn't really understand how Reiki works either. "

"Who said that?"

Then I provided a source. Again, please note the word "SUPPOSEDLY" and the fact that I addressed "if not" as well.

Then:

"And if they AREN'T his own words, I've never seen any quote from him explaining exactly how it does work in all its subtleties, either. "

"have you looked? If so, where?"

"If you know something I don't, simply tell me instead of playing this game. If you know of a direct, verifiable quote from Usui himself in which he explains precisely how Reiki works on all levels then please show me. "

"My whole vein of chat with you has been to hopefully get you to look at things some more. I'm not gonna go the work for you. If i tell you everything i mean, chances are it's gonna be dismissed, because i said it. If though, you go discover the things for yourself, there's more chance you'll lend more weight to it. The end result is the same, but i don't want you casting aside info, just cause i've took an opposing view. This is why i'm not going into great detail, although, i'm touching on many things here,"

sure, so when you treat someone for a vial infection, Reiki isn't a catalyst for the infections death? Per your own recent dictionary description?

And why is that a problem? I've explained numerous times that through my own understand of Life/Death that this does NOT mean it contradicts the term ULFE. I cannot change your mind on this. You have not changed my mind. I'm ok leaving it at that.

Did i say everything had a divine spark? I can't remember that, i might have, sp please show me,

I'm very tempted to respond with "I'm not going to go do the work for you. Maybe you don't remember... but did you try looking?" but I won't.

You said: "Anyhow, does Reiki help plants? yeah, it might." - if Reiki is purely activing our "Divine Spark" and that is how we heal, then that would suggest you feel a plant might have a Divine Spark as well.

You also said: "In this respect at least, all living things are connected via the 'collective' divine. distance doesn't exist then, as far as Reiki & healing go."

You also said that Reiki is always emanating from us. Our Divine Spark is? Ok. You said our Divine Spark when it so much as comes in contact with another activates their own Divine Spark. So if we are all connected and constantly emanating Reiki why does this not activate the bacteria's Divine Spark?

Break time, 'cause this ain't going anywhere.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:Hi fshortt,

In controlled experiments at the University of Arizona, by Dr. Melinda Connor, Dr. Gary Schwartz and their teams, they have achieved verifiable results that a healer (and a reiki healer for that) can have a direct effect on plant tissue, e.coli bacteria, rat tissue, and more, and as such disproven the placebo effect by a great deal.

I'm not sure why you quoted me specifically because if the experiment proves that it has a direct effect on plants then that proves my point as well: plants are part of the Earth.

I will go look this up in a minute.

just wanted to drop a note on the placebo issue, as far as i am aware it is not an issue any longer when studying "energy healing" reiki incl.
nothing specific to you, just the first reference that caught my eye when looking to place my comment on topic.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

This also proved that the energy isn´t running all the time, but there is a mechanism of control (on/off switch).

Wayne, didn't you say it's always emanating from us? Also, what is this energy then?

Also: If Reiki is simply our Divine Spark, and everything has one, and we're all connected by Reiki, then how are you not activating "the bacteria's" Divine Spark too? (Same question you asked me).

there is a constant radiation from every cell in the body, but this baseline reading does change significantly when the practitioner is asked to "run"/"turn on" the energy.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

On Plant tissue, they used bio-photon imaging to see if the healer could both heal and kill tissue - and yes the results were very significant.
on e.coli and rat tissue, same results.

Is this the site you're refering to?: http://www.innerknowing.net/healing.html

I'd like to see the actual study but can't find it. Do you know where I could?

In any event the thing about killing tissue isn't related to Reiki. It was a seperate study, unless I'm missing something.

it is indeed that study.
the bio-photon imaging and the other studies used 5 healing styles, reiki was one of them. The only study that was not reiki was the T6 Spinal paraplegic recovery case.
The point with the bio-photon imaging study was to see if these techniques would be any useful on treating cancer, in which case you want to kill the cancer tissue. anyway, that is their take on it.
I have some pdf´s, slides, and 3 hours interview with documentation presented as footage. I just finished re-logging and labeling all the footage - 3 interviews and 1 public presentation of the findings from the studies.

I would be happy to provide some of what i got, maybe upload here (how much space pr file?). I will try and find a selection of stuff and upload it to my server.
Please remind me of this again, as i am about to go into a very busy week.

The pdf´s i can gather and upload here. i believe, if not drop me your mail.

f

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

I'm fairly sure he understood it more than you & I.

Where did I say otherwise? Does that mean he understood it in a scientific way? I doubt it.

Do you really think you're helping anything here? You just suggest you don't know if one exists or not either...

I said, i didn't say one existed either way.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
so perhaps you should focus on the search yourself for a while before suggesting I do so more.

I always am. I'm not gonna speak about my opnion, if i havn't discovered now, am i. Jeez.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
And if you DO know one way or the other, and you're refusing to tell me (along as WHERE this quote can be found if it DOES exist) then you are really not helping anyone here and are frankly deliberately wasting my time.

Anyone here can speak for themselves bro, .

Wasting your time? I've already shared many different core concepts with you that you're obvioulsy not familiar with. You're upset because i feel you should get off your backside and go see why i'm saying what i'm saying. The only movtiation i'm seeing is you're spending a lot of time debating with me.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
Once again please read what I have said. Where did I say I believe the Hikkei to be his words?

Excuse me, hehe! Why on earth mention the Hikkei to me, if you don't beleive it? and if you do, my comments stand.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
You keep using phrases like "I've already helped you," "I'm trying to get you to think outside the dogma" etc. etc. as if you're here to Enlighten me. That's nice and all but comes off as very egotistical. I thank you for assistance but as you can see, it hasn't helped me in any way but in practicing maintaining my composure.

Egotistical, ok. Does everyone in the world know the same amount of the same subject as everyone else? Course not. Likewise in Reiki, some will know something about a certain area that others may not. It's common sense.

I thought we're here to help each other. If it causes enlightenment, great.

Here's something, . The more a person thinks they know something in Reiki, the more they find they actually don't know. The journey of changing perception never changes. There's always more to develop.

A practitioners ego will resist this, the ego will stubbornly say 'Wayne's talking crap!' The ego will imagine i'm saying things i'm actually not, to try to internally descredit me.

But hey, we all have things we can teach each other.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
I have asked the questions you've brought up myself.

Buddy. It took me 2 whole years to assimilate what i have. And i guarantee, i know damn all within Reiki! 24 hours isn't enough, .

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
Again, I saw you say in another Thread that you KNEW Reiju wasn't permanent and Attunements were through "personal experience." Why is that enough for you but not for me?

In that post, if i reember, i told Andy that Reiju wasn't permanent through my personal experience of students. This obviously says they reported to me the reiki experience of Reiju dissapates, per the subject of that chat.

so 'perosnal experience' means nothing, until it's elaborated upon. and anyhow, I don't undertstand how we're still talking bout that after 2 days. If it;s valid there's should have been no problem saying straight away. It doesn't take 24 hours.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

Did i say everything had a divine spark? I can't remember that, i might have, sp please show me,

I'm very tempted to respond with "I'm not going to go do the work for you. Maybe you don't remember... but did you try looking?" but I won't.

didn't you just write it? If you're saying i said something that i'm saying i didn't back it up please.

If you're taking issue with a concept i'm saying, ask me to back it up please.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
You said: "Anyhow, does Reiki help plants? yeah, it might." - if Reiki is purely activing our "Divine Spark" and that is how we heal, then that would suggest you feel a plant might have a Divine Spark as well.

Why does it suggest that? Our divine spark sets the experience in motion. It's the recipient that experiences it. I never once said a divine spark was needed to recieve it.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
You said our Divine Spark when it so much as comes in contact with another activates their own Divine Spark.

no i never. You're assuming agian, .

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
So if we are all connected and constantly emanating Reiki why does this not activate the bacteria's Divine Spark?

I already told you in post 115.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:
Break time, 'cause this ain't going anywhere.

revisit it in a month or so time, and then go look. when you're not frustrated, .

take care
Wayne

I was lying in bed with my hands on my stomach just thinking about the little life growing inside of me... [/quote]

jeez, wabi, i must have edited your post by accident, and typed my own repsonse to you. please edit the above post again? i've re-poste dmy response, next one down.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:I was lying in bed with my hands on my stomach just thinking about the little life growing inside of me...

It's been a tough day for me, but that's some cheery news i never knew! Congratulations!

I feel a bit of an ass callling you 'Bro', now!

Milarepa wrote:

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:I was lying in bed with my hands on my stomach just thinking about the little life growing inside of me...

It's been a tough day for me, but that's some cheery news i never knew! Congratulations!

I feel a bit of an ass callling you 'Bro', now!

babies...wow...they are so very wonderful....the day after my level two attunement, a friend of mine walked up to me and put her 10 day old son in my arms....I was still wide open from the attunement...I cannot tell how it felt....amazing

A different thought.

People here are claiming that Reiki is inside us, and I have seen that Mrs Takata claimed that Reiki came from within.

While I was lying in bed listening to the radio, the following thought came to mind:

Why does the radio broadcast and I don't? Do the radio waves that carry the transmission go round me and into the radio? Do they know that the radio has a receiver and its purpose is to receive and broadcast? Of course not. Radio waves go through everything (well, almost... but it's a good enough generalisation for these purposes), including me. The reason I don't broadcast the transmission is that I haven't got an aerial or the electronic gubbins inside me to do that. (Nor do I have a faulty dental filling.) However, these waves are still inside me in a very real sense.

So, Reiki can be seen as radio waves. The Reiki attunment can be seen as having the electronic gubbins and aerial installed. In this scenario, Reiki is indeed within us: it's just that some of us have the receiving and broadcast equipment. It doesn't originate from within us, but is still within us and all around us.

I don't believe, therefore, that Reiki is our divine spark. That is what connects us to each and every object in the Universe: I recognise it as the basis of spirituality. Reiki is something completely different.

So to answer another question: why does Reiki act to harm bacteria? The answer which I have derived is that it doesn't. Reiki works on the human being and activates healing within the human being. Directly Reiki doesn't work on the bacteria.

And another question: who actually does the healing anyway? (I've written an academic dissertation on that one and I don't think there's enough space here for it.) If, as some of us believe, the only one who can heal me is me, then Reiki (a healing modality) will work on me. Are bacteria self-healing?

Back outa here - just popped in to record my thoughts.

Pandora wrote: I recognise it as the basis of spirituality. Reiki is something completely different.

Reiki is the basis of spirituality, i feel, . there could be a big clue in the very reason why the word was handed down to us..

As is the nature of kanji in general, the kanji 'Rei' & 'Ki' can have many levels of meaning.

A linguist (or for that matter, a good academic Japanese-English Dictionary) will explain that -


'Rei' encapsulates/refers to:

The Divine, the Numinous
The Mysterious
The Supernatural
A supernatural Being or Spirit
The Spiritual nature
Luminosity of the spirit; the luminosity of a God or Sage
Charisma, charismatic power
Inconceivable spiritual ability
The Soul
Something Pure, Unpolluted
Bright, Clear
Goodness
Something wonderful; a wonder
Excellence, Efficacy
A shaman, a person or being with spiritual or supernatural powers
A rainmaker, a diviner

Source: http://www.aetw.org/reiki_def.html

Pandora wrote:
Are bacteria self-healing?

Are Bacteria able to benfit from the very force that gives them life (ULFE). Seems to stand to reason of course. It's what's gave then life after all, . It'd needed to be checked of course, lest an asumption becomes fact, hehe.

Take care
Wayne

Rlei_ki wrote:So,
if ULE - Universal Life(force) Energy - is, as the name implies, Universal (i.e All-pervading; Existing or prevailing everywhere) why would anyone need to 'channel' it from somewhere to somewhere else?

I don't use the term Universal Life Force energy when describing Reiki, I use the term Divinely guided Life force energy...

when I step into the healing space I am helping to create the appropriate conditions which allows the necessary frequencies of healing energies flow through me and to the recipient.....these healing energies do not come from me, they come through me.....