Level 3 syllabus

Just wondering, what should be taught to Masters level students?

I'm asking this because of Wayne's repeated assertions that we should be sticking to what was originally taught by the Reiki original 3 masters, rather than other later additions. Now I'm thoroughly confused, and I have a Level 3 course starting a week on Saturday. Anyone any help?

Pandora wrote:Just wondering, what should be taught to Masters level students?

I'm asking this because of Wayne's repeated assertions that we should be sticking to what was originally taught by the Reiki original 3 masters, rather than other later additions. Now I'm thoroughly confused, and I have a Level 3 course starting a week on Saturday. Anyone any help?

Chris, i can only speak about my own views & beliefs, that's is , from my own perspective. If on a forum the subject is raised about including stuff in a style that is labeled as belonging to another person, i of course, can and do respond, based on my own beliefs.

It's entirely up to the individual what their own beliefs are. And there are many other things besides Reiki that can help a person, a person is justified to innclude that to help another if they wish. what i am saying exactly, is that Usui Shiki Ryoho is a term that identifies, by it's name, Usui sensei's style. When his style is changed, the name should be. I've never, ever, said 'we' should be sticking to what was originally taught. I said it's a matter of respect, and honour to change the name. I can't see how this is getting confused with folks. .

i'll be very clear, . Rick rivard in Canada changed the name of Komyo, to Komyo Ki, cause he changed the teachings a bit, i.e. distant training, and this was at the specific request of huyakuten inamoto. Vinny Amador changed Karuna to Karuna Ki, as he changed things in the system. If i changed parts of Jikiden, i could no longer call it Jikiden, and, i prob would be forced legally also. I'm only suggesting the same respect be showed to Usui Shiki Ryoho. Usui sensei isn't here to request it in person.


Take care
Wayne

So, Wayne, exactly what is it that should be taught so that I can still say I'm teaching Usui Reiki?

I really don't feel like creating a new style of anything at the moment!

It's my understanding that Karuna Ki was a response to William Lee Rand's trademarking of Karuna, the name and the system. Usui didn't trademark or copyright his system. What was it?

Pandora wrote:So, Wayne, exactly what is it that should be taught so that I can still say I'm teaching Usui Reiki?

that's hard to say, hehe. I've had to stop teaching altogether, this is only my own personal feelings. James has done incredible research into what takata sensei taught, check: http://www.aetw.org/reiki_takata_taught.htm

Pandora wrote:
I really don't feel like creating a new style of anything at the moment!

I agree, it's a daunting thing, . Personally, if i was gonna teach and label it Usui Shiki Ryoho, at the very least i'd find out all i could as to what Takata sensei taught, and if i still feel i needed to bulk up the course, i'd feel obliged to be specific that some things may not be part of Usui Shiki Ryoho.

when we think about things like Reiji ho, which Takata sensei learnt, the technqiue may seem easy, but a lot of time could be spent on it, for instance.

Pandora wrote:
It's my understanding that Karuna Ki was a response to William Lee Rand's trademarking of Karuna, the name and the system. Usui didn't trademark or copyright his system. What was it?

Prob true in part. although, vinny changed things considerably, and i feel he'd have no need to call it Karuna. He created Karuna Ki before the trademarking of Karuna, i feel, from his own words on his site: http://web.archive.org/web/20020601175003/angelreiki.nu/karunaki/karuna.html.

We still have folks like huyakuten inamoto asking Rick rivard to change his to Komyo ki. And john grey changing his also. And, most importantly, what was the common practice in Japan, whilst Usui sensei was alive, .

Take care
Wayne

I personally feel that at Level III there shouldn't be a whole lot of teaching required. No one should NEED to go on to Level III in order to learn everything they need to know... basically by the time you're given the actual Level II Attunement and certificate you should be knowledgeable about Reiki, have sufficient practice, and a thorough understanding of all the major concepts.

aetw.org, as said, is probably the best resource for learning what was, wasn't, and may or may not have been part of the original Usui system.

Level III should be exclusively to provide the final Attunement, Master Symbol (meaning, uses, etc.), teach the Attunement rituals, provide guidance in creating their own manual and syllabus, and teach how to be a responsible and ethical teacher (i.e. they should understand that you don't perform the Attunement and hand over the certificate until after a student has shown their knowledge and understanding of the curriculum and had sufficient practice, that providing post-Attunement support should be mandatory, etc.)

Again, just my opinion.

I hear what you're saying, Wabi-sabi, but my experience tells me that my Western students need to take things a little more slowly. My own RM did much the same as you are telling me, which has left me feeling up in the air somewhat. As I'm already a teacher in "real life", my RM felt he didn't need to tell me how to teach or organise courses or write manuals - just how to attune people. So I feel a little lost, especially as I am aware that there is so much more to Reiki!

I decided in the end to split the Level 3 into 2 parts and we are working through what I'm calling "Advanced Reiki Practices" at the moment. My students have found it amazingly profound. I've covered the three pillars as outlined in the Mikao Usui Handbook, byosen scanning (per Rand), and a few other things which may not necessarily be what everyone else thinks of Reiki - healing attunements, crystals and Reiki, working with different energy techniques.

I feel the energy techniques have made a difference to this group, and that they have had them at a time when they are ready for them. I know some people would cover them even at Level 1: however, I don't think people who don't have experience of energy work can handle them. I have a student who is into Eastern religions and whose energy field and meridians are phenomenal. There's a lot he can teach me. Even he doesn't find the byosen stuff easy.

Well I guess what I mean is that Level I and II should be taken slowly too. A lot of people find that all they need is Reiki I/II and so it's important that all the teaching be done at those levels. Level III doesn't need to be done immediately after... take a year or two to put in to practice what you've learned.

My own RM did much the same as you are telling me, which has left me feeling up in the air somewhat. As I'm already a teacher in "real life", my RM felt he didn't need to tell me how to teach or organise courses or write manuals - just how to attune people. So I feel a little lost, especially as I am aware that there is so much more to Reiki!

I did say Level III should definitely include helping your student understand how to develop their own courses and put together their own manual.

And yes, there's always much more to learn about Reiki, but that applies to anything. What I'm saying is that by the time you recieve your Level II certificate you should have a thorough understanding of the main concepts and have been taught all the techniques already... and then you should be taking a year or so off to put them into practice and continue studying in that way, under the guidance of a teacher.

decided in the end to split the Level 3 into 2 parts and we are working through what I'm calling "Advanced Reiki Practices" at the moment. My students have found it amazingly profound. I've covered the three pillars as outlined in the Mikao Usui Handbook, byosen scanning (per Rand),

I guess this is what I'm refering to. I feel they're called the 3 Pillars for a reason... they're crucial to effective Reiki treatments, and I teach this to Level I students. I don't feel only people who have enough money to go all the way to Level III, or who want to become teachers themselves, should know these things. I don't see how these especially could be too advanced for anyone. The 3 Pillars are fairly simply (although Gassho Meiso can take some getting used to for people who aren't used to meditation), and certainly Chiryo is the most complicated, yet we all teach that at Level I?

Likewise I consider scanning important and teach that at Level I as well... it can be difficult to do and this gives students the time they need to practice, and that's the ONLY way they will develop it... not by taking more courses and reading more texts. No, they won't master it right off the bat, and that's ok... In basically all other types of energy-work I've studied this is one of the first things we're taught to develop: our ability to sense and interpret energy.

Since there is little regulation when it comes to Reiki and a Level I or II enables a student to use Reiki, I think teaching these things immediately is incredibly important.

As for the other things, that's fine, but like you said they aren't part of Reiki and so it doesn't really matter when you choose to teach them. I teach about combining Reiki/crystals as well, at any level.

Namaste.

The reason why I don't teach the three pillars or byosen at Levels 1/2 is the presence of the hand positions. You don't actually need the three pillars or byosen to carry out a perfectly good Reiki treatment: all you need is the hand positions, and at level 2 the symbols.

When I introduced these "new" techniques to my students, I likened it to when I learnt shorthand. I spent a term learning the outline for each letter/sound (and actually got a certificate for 50 words per minute when at this level). Then we had to learn something new - in fact, I'd say we "unlearned" the outlines, and learned outlines for words and phrases which sped up the process. (I ended up with 120 words per minute. Of course if you asked me to take shorthand now, some 25 years later, I'd struggle.) I think the byosen process is very much akin to this.

(Edit) In fact, my RM didn't teach me the three pillars or byosen at all. I'm not sure he uses them. I don't think I ever have used either of them in a treatment. But I can see their value and think they're important.

The more a person expereinces Reiji ho, for instance, by it's very act, the more one might be able to realise that every act is spititual in Reiki.

Once this is realised, looking deeply into techniques might benefit one.

It's not, or at least, shouldn't be, about teaching how to perform a technique. there's much more understandings & realizations to come than simply carrying it out, or seeing some benefit in ourselves or another.

To know intricately why a person does every single act within a technique, why a hand goes here, our awareness there, is to begin to know what Reiki is all about. Both the system, and whatever else one classifies 'Reiki' as. .

It's a longer path for sure, but a much more rewarding one. It's spirituality, and this doesn't come quick. If a teacher chooses to go down this road, the student will surely get money worth, and much much benefit. It is more work though...

Take care
Wayne

Namaste,

I personally would not equate scanning to learning shorthand at all. Learning to sense and interpret subtle shifts in energy is imperative in my opinion, particularly in Usui's system as it's not a passive system (unlike, for example, Kundalini Reiki). To me, not knowing how to do so would be like a doctor treating someone with a cocktail of medications instead of doing a simple bloodtest to determine what's wrong.

If we don't learn to do this then all we do is a basic, standard session where we ONLY cover the general hand positions. This is good practice in general but some areas may need additional attention. If someone burns their hand, do directly treat the area and put emphasis on it or do we do a full body treatment and never give any special attention to the area that needs it most?

Edit - Wayne I'm not sure which path you're actually refering to. I think some people may think that I'm rushing things. But I do not provide "weekend Attunents".. in fact I have students who have been studying Reiki I/II with my for over a year now. I just like to teach these important concepts right away, so that they have plenty of time to develop their abilities and practice the techniques while I can assist them in it. I don't do Attunements or give out certificates as soon as someone's read over the material and answered a few questions... I'm willing to work with someone as long as it takes.

Reiki isn't passive?! I definitely like you wabi!

BTW, Reiki is also a preventitive therapy, bot just a reactionary one. With things such as Byosen, and Reiji ho, we can locate areas of potential dis-ease within the aura, before they may manifest to full blown symptoms, .

Sorry Wabi. Wasn't really directing it at you, although you're comments & chris's did stimulate my thought. I was actually thinking about Reiki teaching generally when i wrote it, and also a chat Chris & I had brielfy over the last couple weeks, with regard to teaching. .

i'm referring to the 'path of discovery' within Reiki, hehe.

BTW, Reiki is also a preventitive therapy, bot just a reactionary one. With things such as Byosen, and Reiji ho, we can locate areas of potential dis-ease within the aura, before they may manifest to full blown symptoms,

A really good point. It should be emphasized more in Reiki. To be honest it was only when I started studying pranic healing that I realized this was a possibility... unfortunate.

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:Namaste,

I personally would not equate scanning to learning shorthand at all. Learning to sense and interpret subtle shifts in energy is imperative in my opinion, .

I agree. Using standardized hand positions is okay if there's unlimited time, because it covers most of the major organs and glands of the body. But of course, available time for treatment is often not unlimited.

Practices like scanning are also important because an underlying problem can be located at a place other than where discomfort is noted. (E.g., bulging disk resulting in pain along someone's arm.)

If we don't learn to do this then all we do is a basic, standard session where we ONLY cover the general hand positions. This is good practice in general but some areas may need additional attention. If someone burns their hand, do directly treat the area and put emphasis on it or do we do a full body treatment and never give any special attention to the area that needs it most?

Well, on a previous message board, Bridget once suggested that Usui standardized hand positions just to keep reiki practitioners from becoming bored. She was saying this in the context of claiming that reiki goes to wherever it's needed. So presumably, she would treat the same area of the body regardless of the client's description of what might be wrong. No need for standard positions OR for byosen OR for giving special attention to any particular area. Or for the client to say anything, for that matter. Just send energy into a client's big toe, I suppose, regardless of what the client's condition is. I guess that makes it easy.

Bruce

Well, on a previous message board, Bridget once suggested that Usui standardized hand positions just to keep reiki practitioners from becoming bored. She was saying this in the context of claiming that reiki goes to wherever it's needed. So presumably, she would treat the same area of the body regardless of the client's description of what might be wrong. No need for standard positions OR for byosen OR for giving special attention to any particular area. Or for the client to say anything, for that matter. Just send energy into a client's big toe, I suppose, regardless of what the client's condition is. I guess that makes it easy.

Yeah, it really depends on what you choose to believe in this regard. If you channel Reiki and an area no longer needs it and you feel it repulse, does it just go *poof* into midair? Probably not. Does it know where to go? I'm not so sure. If it comes by an area lacking energy, I imagine it might settle there. I do intend that it go where needed.

I see this form of treatment as seperate from Usui's system though, and specifically as Kundalini Reiki.

Even if the energy ultimately goes where it's needed, I think there's more to the hand positions, techniques (different methods of applying Reiki that Usui used), and to the suggested treatment guides for certain illnesses, than simply keeping students from getting bored.

If we pour a bucket of water down a hill towards a pond, it will eventually get there, but it will also take longer, there won't be as much, and it will become more and more diluted as it makes its way down.

If Reiki truly is "intelligent energy" then I would see no need for Reiki at all. We are all already connected to it, it's already a part of us, it's all around us... it only goes where it's needed if it travels through one of us first? Why?

o0wabi-sabi0o wrote:

Well, on a previous message board, Bridget once suggested that Usui standardized hand positions just to keep reiki practitioners from becoming bored. She was saying this in the context of claiming that reiki goes to wherever it's needed. So presumably, she would treat the same area of the body regardless of the client's description of what might be wrong. No need for standard positions OR for byosen OR for giving special attention to any particular area. Or for the client to say anything, for that matter. Just send energy into a client's big toe, I suppose, regardless of what the client's condition is. I guess that makes it easy.

Yeah, it really depends on what you choose to believe in this regard. If you channel Reiki and an area no longer needs it and you feel it repulse, does it just go *poof* into midair? Probably not. Does it know where to go? I'm not so sure. If it comes by an area lacking energy, I imagine it might settle there. I do intend that it go where needed.

I see this form of treatment as seperate from Usui's system though, and specifically as Kundalini Reiki.

Even if the energy ultimately goes where it's needed, I think there's more to the hand positions, techniques (different methods of applying Reiki that Usui used), and to the suggested treatment guides for certain illnesses, than simply keeping students from getting bored.

If we pour a bucket of water down a hill towards a pond, it will eventually get there, but it will also take longer, there won't be as much, and it will become more and more diluted as it makes its way down.

If Reiki truly is "intelligent energy" then I would see no need for Reiki at all. We are all already connected to it, it's already a part of us, it's all around us... it only goes where it's needed if it travels through one of us first? Why?

It's definitely not Kundalini Reiki. I've not been attuned in that system: I was attuned in Usui Reiki.

Why do we need to be the medium? Some people ask that very question and have come to the conclusion that we don't, that we can access our own healing simply by asking. Personally I've not found that's possible.

But, as I've said here before, "God has no hands but your hands". As Reiki is there for human beings, surely it makes sense that it is mediated via a human being, and not one of the spiritual beings? My guides tell me that I am needed to be the channel on the physical side, but that they help with the spiritual side. Of course, your mileage may vary.

Topic split & moved to relevant existing topic..

http://www.reikilearninglounge.com/must-reads-f15/concerning-ule-t24.htm