How long is your Level 3 training?

I'm interested in seeing how long either your level 3 trainig you took was, or how long you teach level 3. As apprenticship, etc.

take care
Wayne

my internship was for nominally 6 months, but for however long it took for my RMT to feel I was ready, and however long it took me to facilitate 50 sessions.

It took me roughly 5 months to get my certificate.

Andy

My teacher taught me Level 3 in one day, using the standards set by the International Center for Reiki Training. (I currently do not teach Level 3 - I don't feel that I'm ready to take that step yet.) However, it was about a year before I really started to work with the techniques I'd learned and I'm still trying to deepen that part of my practice.

I took a 2-day course for certification at level 3 in Tera Mai Reiki. No real apprenticeship but a very good basic weekend course , and the option of meeting up every month...

I don't recall the exact format of my internet attunements, but suffice to say the training was optional... whether I reached master level or not, it's difficult to say, but I think I got to at least level 9 before I ran out of patience.

I also have a DVD attunement at level 3, from a Manster who recommends that you keep returning to the DVD to enable regular re-attunement!!! There is no indication on the DVD of how to conduct attunements (so I suppose you just let people watch your DVD)!!!

Now that I'm a Master, of course, there's nothing that you, or anyone else for that matter, can say that I don't already know. So, no change there then.


John

I forgot to mention that my Reiki teacher holds Reiki shares every other month, which allows us the opportunity to connect with other Reiki folks and learn/practice skills.

I still feel like I'm learning and part of my issue is trying to find time to practice some of the meditations/techniques when I'm very busy with a full-time job, part-time business and a family!!

5 days including to be a reiki master which I would have liked to be longer I had to findout more via internet, forums etc, but she was the one i could afford to go to.


Serenelight

The long answer:

I received my first level 1, 2, and 3 in 1993--not quite sure if the Reiki Master Teacher title was fully a part of the community at that time (but I think it was just emerging).

Level 1 was three days (Friday evening, all day Saturday, all day Sunday), and Level 2 was the same. Many of us inquired about the Reiki Master training from the teacher, Denise Crundall (from Australia, now deceased). She required the $10,000 fee and that the student provide a hands-on Reiki treatment to someone while that person died (such as through hospice volunteer work). From what I have heard, she only attuned one person to Reiki Master (but I do not know that students name).

I could not afford $10k at that time, so went about things in a different way. By the end of 1993, I solicited a print ad from someone performing authentic Reiki Master attunements. If I recall correctly, I paid $750 or perhaps $800 for the attunement. The entire process took less than an hour, and that was it. She got her money, I got the attunement and certificate, she left, and that was it. She did not stay in contact with me, and I do not know if she continues to teach Reiki or not.

I began to perform attunements to small groups while I was living at San Francisco Zen Center, but eventually stopped for a number of reasons. One reason was that I was asked to stop by the employees of the center (my performing attunements in the Buddha Hall made others uncomfortable because it wasn't "zen"), another was that one year I would be living in San Francisco and the next Los Angeles (because of corporate take-overs--I would have to move to keep my job with the same/new company), and the other was that my life was just plain unstable at that time. I decided just to focus on the one-on-one process through my massage client base.

While I practiced one-on-one, I read and studied various material. By 1994 or so I began work as a hospice volunteer and eventually had the experience Denise wanted her students to have... and understood why she made such a requirement. Beginning in 1996 or so, I became involved with the alt.healing.reiki (AHR) crew and was introduced to global group distance attunements.

My Reiki Master training continued by working individually with others, and through the world-wide efforts and support of the regulars on AHR for many years (that includes distance Reiki attunements). In 2006, my training reached a new phase when I began to host Reiki meetings in my apartment. In 2009, my training continues because we no longer meet in my apartment but rent a commercial business space where we set up massage tables (we currently own four), offer a Reiki Clinic, and perform ongoing attunements on each other. We meet two Sundays per month, and sometimes each receive at least six attunements.

Have you heard the saying "we don't know what we don't know"? Well, in spite of my teachy-weachy RMT certificates, each time I lead a class, I gain a greater understanding of how much I don't know.


The short answer:

16+ years (my enrollment status is "active").

Stephen,

It sounded like you re-attune people. Is that correct? I've heard there's some value in doing that, but when I asked my teacher he sort of just shrugged it off. He said it can be very healing but beyond that had no inherent value (in terms of increasing your energy vibrations.) Curious to know what your take is on that.

Dragonfly wrote:Stephen,

It sounded like you re-attune people. Is that correct? I've heard there's some value in doing that, but when I asked my teacher he sort of just shrugged it off. He said it can be very healing but beyond that had no inherent value (in terms of increasing your energy vibrations.) Curious to know what your take is on that.

Hi Dragonfly.

I like to think that the attunements are not about giving power or increasing vibration but rather becoming more self aware.

stephenbuck415 wrote:

Dragonfly wrote:Stephen,

It sounded like you re-attune people. Is that correct? I've heard there's some value in doing that, but when I asked my teacher he sort of just shrugged it off. He said it can be very healing but beyond that had no inherent value (in terms of increasing your energy vibrations.) Curious to know what your take is on that.

Hi Dragonfly.

I like to think that the attunements are not about giving power or increasing vibration but rather becoming more self aware.

Nice, Buck! I also like to think of it as simply sharing (amongst equals, regardless of who is "officially" teacher and who is "officially" student - we're all students of life when it comes right down to it!). What are we sharing? Some might say energy, some might say Spirit, but I like to think of it as simply sharing Love.

Love and Light,

Garry

Thanks guys! I just wanted to make sure I heard that distinction because I have heard/read many different interpretations about what benefit one would receive from multiple attunements. I very much like the idea of sharing.

Dragonfly wrote:Thanks guys! I just wanted to make sure I heard that distinction because I have heard/read many different interpretations about what benefit one would receive from multiple attunements. I very much like the idea of sharing.

For me, receiving another attunement to something I've already been attuned is just another chance to receive a very nice blessing. Certainly something that is fun to share with someone.

I have been giving this a lot of thought over the last year or so.
My own Reiki 3 training was 4 days, plus follow up sessions, plus Reiki shares.
When I first started to teach Reiki 1 I did not feel that confident about doing so and that is something many others say.
I am currently not teaching because I don't feel able to be able to do the job properly. This is not because of any shortcomings in my own knowledge or ability, but in the willingness of students to undergo the extensive training that I feel is needed to be a fully confident and competent Reiki teacher.
For me Reiki 1 should be a at least a 6 month course. There is a lot more than just Reiki to be developed. There is the whole spiritual development side of things and that cannot be done in a weekend, it takes time. There are other considerations as well, for instance a basic knowledge of anatomy and physiology, the laws (rules and regulations) that are relevant in your part of the world as well as the manipulation of energy, and that is just Reiki 1. Reiki 2 has the symbols and a further development of energy manipulation. Reiki 3 is all about passing on your knowledge.
From personal experience the spiritual development side of things is an ongoing and personal process, so what is right for one will not be right for another.
Knowing how to put together a workshop or series of workshops is the biggie thou. You can't teach effectively until you can do this (IMO).
How long does it take to teach? Could be months, could be longer.

Well this is a good topic. What I have to say may well be long and controversial (I'm already not posting in another place because of their reaction to a similar posting).

My own Level 3 - well I'm not sure how to quantify how long it took. I had an attunement at Level 3 as part of a number of one to one evening sessions with my RM, I also helped with a Level 1 and Level 2 attunement. Because of various factors, I stopped seeing my RM after about 2 months.

Now I teach Level 3 as a sort of ongoing mentorship: it depends on the student really. I attuned my best friend to Level 3 as a birthday present and as a way of saying thank you for introducing me to Reiki, but she doesn't call herself a Reiki Master. I have one Level 3 student at the moment, she's had the attunement and some input on scanning, deepening the connection and the spirit world, but doesn't want to teach yet so we've left the teaching bit for another time. I will have another one in the summer, we just have to fix a date. I think she will want to be a fellow worker more than the other two so I might have to compose a different syllabus.

Here's the controversial bit. I think you need to reach lots of other stuff alongside Reiki: however, others think you should just teach Reiki, and try and keep it as close to the Usui Reiki tradition as you can.

My reasons for wanting to cover other things are that I am a Western Christian (basically), not a Japanese Buddhist/Taoist/Confucian/whatever. When Reiki found me I had a belief system which my teachers had given me, which included auras, chakras, spirit world, angels, guides - all that stuff which isn't really Reiki but which I find fits perfectly. In wanting to do this I am honouring my teachers: I honour Usui Sensei but he is not my only teacher.

I am also a spiritual healer and teacher, and was approached by a student who wanted to learn what I knew. We sat down and agreed a one year syllabus which used the spiritual healing syllabus but combined it with the three levels of Reiki. It works really, really well.

Continuing on with a discussion on another forum here, am I creating another form of Reiki, or the Pandora's Box system of energy work... (hey perhaps I ought to trademark that!)

Pandora wrote:Well this is a good topic. What I have to say may well be long and controversial (I'm already not posting in another place because of their reaction to a similar posting).

My own Level 3 - well I'm not sure how to quantify how long it took. I had an attunement at Level 3 as part of a number of one to one evening sessions with my RM, I also helped with a Level 1 and Level 2 attunement. Because of various factors, I stopped seeing my RM after about 2 months.

Now I teach Level 3 as a sort of ongoing mentorship: it depends on the student really. I attuned my best friend to Level 3 as a birthday present and as a way of saying thank you for introducing me to Reiki, but she doesn't call herself a Reiki Master. I have one Level 3 student at the moment, she's had the attunement and some input on scanning, deepening the connection and the spirit world, but doesn't want to teach yet so we've left the teaching bit for another time. I will have another one in the summer, we just have to fix a date. I think she will want to be a fellow worker more than the other two so I might have to compose a different syllabus.

Here's the controversial bit. I think you need to reach lots of other stuff alongside Reiki: however, others think you should just teach Reiki, and try and keep it as close to the Usui Reiki tradition as you can.

My reasons for wanting to cover other things are that I am a Western Christian (basically), not a Japanese Buddhist/Taoist/Confucian/whatever. When Reiki found me I had a belief system which my teachers had given me, which included auras, chakras, spirit world, angels, guides - all that stuff which isn't really Reiki but which I find fits perfectly. In wanting to do this I am honouring my teachers: I honour Usui Sensei but he is not my only teacher.

I am also a spiritual healer and teacher, and was approached by a student who wanted to learn what I knew. We sat down and agreed a one year syllabus which used the spiritual healing syllabus but combined it with the three levels of Reiki. It works really, really well.

Continuing on with a discussion on another forum here, am I creating another form of Reiki, or the Pandora's Box system of energy work... (hey perhaps I ought to trademark that!)

First, let me say that I agree with your approach Pandora.

Furthermore, each RMT must figure out how they will teach. Even in your public schools, every math teacher and every English teacher have a different style of teaching. Different students will gel with different teaching styles, and so one teacher may be horrible for them, while another will be awesome.

You find a lot of the Japanese terminology associated with Reiki, and I think you are spot on, that these things are actually part of the cultural Japanese spirituality that came over from China and Buddhism. As a matter of fact, it is very likely that the lineage of the term Tanden is derived from the Chinese Dantien, which is derived from the Chakra’s from India. So it could be said that the Seiki (sp?) Tanden is actually the Dantien or Hara is actually the 2nd Chakra. The position is slightly different, but largely in the same area.

Since Reiki is so spiritual, I agree, we should do our best to incorporate it into our own spirituality.

Now, I know Wayne and I don’t always agree 100% on this topic. But ultimately I think we should search our heart, and it will know the right course for each one of us. And that right course may be different than it is for others.

Pandora wrote:Well this is a good topic. What I have to say may well be long and controversial (I'm already not posting in another place because of their reaction to a similar posting).

In this forum for sure, no matter how different an opinion is, it's as valid as any other. And in fact, if it's goes againmst the current collective 'assumptions' it's even more welcome, .

Pandora wrote:
Now I teach Level 3 as a sort of ongoing mentorship: it depends on the student really.

It's interesting that you & Rob are on the same page as this. Rob has been doing spiritual healing also, and you're a spiritual healer, so i guess that's where that influence comes in?

Pandora wrote:
Here's the controversial bit. I think you need to reach lots of other stuff alongside Reiki: however, others think you should just teach Reiki, and try and keep it as close to the Usui Reiki tradition as you can.

For me, if someone comes to learn Reiki, i'd want to teach Reiki. I'm a qualified yoga teacher also, and if someone came wanting to learn yoga, i see no point in teaching them T'ai Chi, whilst having to leave bits of Yoga out. . Unless of course, they specificially asked for this.

Pandora wrote:
Continuing on with a discussion on another forum here, am I creating another form of Reiki, or the Pandora's Box system of energy work... (hey perhaps I ought to trademark that!)

My own opinion is that if things are changed and added to the style, it should be a new style created. This is for sure if one is teaching it also. It's practice, and a mark of respect also, in Japan to change the name of the style, if one has changed things within said style. And although we aren't living in Japan, i do feel it the right thing to do to honour our lineage, and the founder of Usui Reiki.

Having said that, what one does in their own spritual practice is private. .

Take care
Wayne

Thaak wrote:

Furthermore, each RMT must figure out how they will teach. Even in your public schools, every math teacher and every English teacher have a different style of teaching. Different students will gel with different teaching styles, and so one teacher may be horrible for them, while another will be awesome.

Yeah true, . Though, the maths teacher is teaching maths, the english teacher teaching english. If maths began to incorporate large sections of politics, history, etc, whilst leaving out things like calculus, it does maths an injustice, imo.

Pandora wrote:
Now, I know Wayne and I don’t always agree 100% on this topic.

I can only say where i'm coming from, . I've no problem a person doing whatever they like in their own spiritual path. I don't agree with RMT's who then teach that, under the well known name of Usui sensei, whilst leaving out vital pieces of teaching, and not feeling honour driven to need to find out what Usui sensei taught, since we use his name, and his popularity. It's the reason i felt compelled to stop teaching.

Second reason is that the RMT doesn't tell the student what has been changed. Sometimes the RMT doesn't know, i know that. This goes back to last paragraph. If someone wants to teach a style, first they should actually know the style, .

You see, what's right for me, you Andy, or indeed anyone else on in the Reiki world, is solely right for us, individually. If we automatically assume it would be right for others, this is in ego-land we've took a trip too.

In summation, we owe Usui sensei a lot. Some of us owe him everything, we might say. There's no problem with showing him respect, per his countries custom (he'd prob expect it now if he where alive), and showing the label of 'teacher' respect, by finding out all a maths teacher should know, if they are meant to teach maths.

This is only what my opinion is, .

Take care
Wayne

Milarepa wrote:

Thaak wrote:

Furthermore, each RMT must figure out how they will teach. Even in your public schools, every math teacher and every English teacher have a different style of teaching. Different students will gel with different teaching styles, and so one teacher may be horrible for them, while another will be awesome.

Yeah true, . Though, the maths teacher is teaching maths, the english teacher teaching english. If maths began to incorporate large sections of politics, history, etc, whilst leaving out things like calculus, it does maths an injustice, imo.

Pandora wrote:
Now, I know Wayne and I don’t always agree 100% on this topic.

I can only say where i'm coming from, . I've no problem a person doing whatever they like in their own spiritual path. I don't agree with RMT's who then teach that, under the well known name of Usui sensei, whilst leaving out vital pieces of teaching, and not feeling honour driven to need to find out what Usui sensei taught, since we use his name, and his popularity. It's the reason i felt compelled to stop teaching.

Second reason is that the RMT doesn't tell the student what has been changed. Sometimes the RMT doesn't know, i know that. This goes back to last paragraph. If someone wants to teach a style, first they should actually know the style, .

You see, what's right for me, you Andy, or indeed anyone else on in the Reiki world, is solely right for us, individually. If we automatically assume it would be right for others, this is in ego-land we've took a trip too.

In summation, we owe Usui sensei a lot. Some of us owe him everything, we might say. There's no problem with showing him respect, per his countries custom (he'd prob expect it now if he where alive), and showing the label of 'teacher' respect, by finding out all a maths teacher should know, if they are meant to teach maths.

This is only what my opinion is, .

Take care
Wayne

chuckle...

Teaching someone about Chakra's in Reiki is NOT akin to teaching Math in an English class.

Some history actually does get taught, albeit indirectly, in an English class. At least in the US it does. I mean if I read Shakespeare, or Mark Twain for class, then I'm also learning about history in a way.

Teaching someone about Chakra's in Reiki is akin to teaching someone about how to wrap a sprained ankle in Reiki.

Thaak wrote:

Milarepa wrote:

Thaak wrote:

Furthermore, each RMT must figure out how they will teach. Even in your public schools, every math teacher and every English teacher have a different style of teaching. Different students will gel with different teaching styles, and so one teacher may be horrible for them, while another will be awesome.

Yeah true, . Though, the maths teacher is teaching maths, the english teacher teaching english. If maths began to incorporate large sections of politics, history, etc, whilst leaving out things like calculus, it does maths an injustice, imo.

Pandora wrote:
Now, I know Wayne and I don’t always agree 100% on this topic.

I can only say where i'm coming from, . I've no problem a person doing whatever they like in their own spiritual path. I don't agree with RMT's who then teach that, under the well known name of Usui sensei, whilst leaving out vital pieces of teaching, and not feeling honour driven to need to find out what Usui sensei taught, since we use his name, and his popularity. It's the reason i felt compelled to stop teaching.

Second reason is that the RMT doesn't tell the student what has been changed. Sometimes the RMT doesn't know, i know that. This goes back to last paragraph. If someone wants to teach a style, first they should actually know the style, .

You see, what's right for me, you Andy, or indeed anyone else on in the Reiki world, is solely right for us, individually. If we automatically assume it would be right for others, this is in ego-land we've took a trip too.

In summation, we owe Usui sensei a lot. Some of us owe him everything, we might say. There's no problem with showing him respect, per his countries custom (he'd prob expect it now if he where alive), and showing the label of 'teacher' respect, by finding out all a maths teacher should know, if they are meant to teach maths.

This is only what my opinion is, .

Take care
Wayne

chuckle...

Teaching someone about Chakra's in Reiki is NOT akin to teaching Math in an English class.

Think so? I'd say teaching the endocrine system in Reiki is akin to keeping maths, maths, hehe. And is in line with the Hikkei. That's if the Hikkei is to be believed either, hehe, .

Thaak wrote:
Some history actually does get taught, albeit indirectly, in an English class. At least in the US it does. I mean if I read Shakespeare, or Mark Twain for class, then I'm also learning about history in a way.

Yes, it's a moot point, and small aspect though. It begs the question, where is the line drawn?

If one is teaching in school under the banner of 'education', this can be set alongside teaching under the banner of 'spiritual' or 'healing', they're all-encompassign terms. Though, like education, we are best learning maths in maths, and english in english. Granted there is slight overlap, it's negilible though.

Likewise, in a spiritual or healing path, if we teach Reiki, it should be Reiki. Yoga = Yoga, etc. Unless a student wants it otherwise, i don't feel we should teach them our own version of personal spirituality, without their knowledge, to begin with, .

Thaak wrote:
Teaching someone about Chakra's in Reiki is akin to teaching someone about how to wrap a sprained ankle in Reiki.

If you're suggesting that teaching someone how to wrap a sprained ankle in Reiki, has no place in that spiritual path, i'd agree. I wouldn't wish to go to Ta'i Chi, and learn CPR. No matter how useful CPR may be. When i want to learn CPR, i'll go do a course specifically in it, .

Take care
Wayne

What I was trying to imply, was that if you teach anything about the body or anatomy (such as from Hyashi's guide) then it would not at all be out of place to discuss the Chakra's since they are part of your body. Of course you discuss the Chakra's as a part of the body and in relation to Reiki. You wouldn't discuss Kundalini or other Suffi or Yogic practices within a Reiki class.

But as a Teacher, when a student says, "hey, my forehead or my abdomen feels incredibly hot while I'm facilitating a Reiki session." You would have something to teach or discuss with them, since those are locations of two Chakra's.

Learning what each Chakra' does and all that really should be an entirely different class however, but notice that the hand positions don't just follow the endocrine system, but also the 7 Chakras.

Thaak wrote:What I was trying to imply, was that if you teach anything about the body or anatomy (such as from Hyashi's guide) then it would not at all be out of place to discuss the Chakra's since they are part of your body.

Well, we could have:-

Seika Tanden (Japanese)
Chakras (Vedic)
Three Jewels (Chinese)

If they all exist, which is most releavant? Or should we teach all of them? It'd take us a long time even to know the systems ourselves, never mind teach others.

If we concentrate on the chakras, as we feel all else came from them, to use that logic means we should concentrate on everything vedic. It doesn't sit with me.

Thaak wrote:
But as a Teacher, when a student says, "hey, my forehead or my abdomen feels incredibly hot while I'm facilitating a Reiki session." You would have something to teach or discuss with them, since those are locations of two Chakra's.

Just the chakras are there? Nothing else? .

Thaak wrote:
Learning what each Chakra' does and all that really should be an entirely different class however, but notice that the hand positions don't just follow the endocrine system, but also the 7 Chakras.

I'm glad you touched on this, . Ever thought about the way the 7 major chakras are in the same places as the 7 major endocrine glands?

Earliest recorded mention of the chakras is in the Vedas, about 4000 or 5000 years ago. The earliest recorded mention of any of the endocrine glands is about 2000 or 3000 years ago. Arguably in Egypt.

We sense things via Byosen, yeah? We're not special in that we can do this. I mean, we're not the first humans do be able to sense like this, i bet.

Let's go back 4000 or 5000 years. Till a time when perhaps humanities medical knowledge wasn't as good as it grew into. humanity has got certain 'sensitives'. These folks are living a spiritual live, and by virtue of that, their perceptions are kinda different. They can sense energetically some things.

For instance, they can, after a time, sense an area of the brain that in some way corresponds to spirituality. How would they describe this? They'd say what they feel, or see most likely. So, in the middle of the brain they'd describe an energetic vortex. Give it a name, call it Ajna, the 6th chakra...

..Today, with our advanced medicine, we call it the pineal gland, and as religion has said for a long time, and science now agrees, it is our extra eye. 'Third eye' sound familiar?

The endocrine system is integral to our health, in every way. Each one actually corresponds to different things within us (sounds familiar). Takata sensei highlighted it also i feel, speaking about concetrating on treating the solar plexus.

This bit should be right down your street Andy.. With humans emitting an energetic field, and the endocrine glands being so vital to that, i feel they will of ocurse emit a stronger sensation, than other areas of the body. It's my opnion, that thousands of years ago, the only way this could be described was by creating the chakra system. So, i feel the chakras are explaining the endocrine system, and are based on it. .

Take care
Wayne

Not at all what I'm trying to say though.

I think that Pandora hit the nail on the head with what I'm talking about.

Our culture doesn't study Japanese spirituality, which includes the Seika Tanden. Nor does it study Chinese spirituality (Taoism mostly) which includes the Dantien or Three Jewels. A widely accepted terminology, albeit largely as buzz words instead of with true knowledge (I may be guilty here as well) is Chakra.

So why should I envelop myself in Japanese spirituality, which because of the way their culture is significantly and fundamentally different from ours, I wouldn't understand without many years of arduous study, just for Reiki. I have a system (Chakras) that I understand fairly well (although deeper study wouldn't hurt) with tons of literature to help, that seems to easily flow with what Reiki teaches.

Different terminology. Slightly different meanings. But ultimately, the ability for Reiki system of healing to easily have synergy with any spiritual system to me, means that I can incorporate whatever terminology my spirituality understands so that Reiki will have a deeper impact with me on a personal level.

If that is how I understand Reiki, then why wouldn't I teach it the way I understand it best? That would seem to me to be the best way I can communicate the lesson to my student, rather than using terms and spirituality that I don't understand. My lesson would probably come off without authenticity or as disingenuous.

Now of course the argument could be made, that I shouldn't teach Reiki until I fully understand the spirituality of Usui. But truly, who can say they do?

My point is, that the spirituality of Usui is not Reiki. It supports Reiki, and it gives a practitioner a knowledge base by which to understand Reiki as best they can. But any spiritual system can do that.

If Reiki were rediscovered by a Chilean fisherman, we'd probably see an entirely different argument here... but Usui rediscovered it. As such, we see much of his personal spirituality interwoven into the system of healing.

But If you are going to teach an awareness of the energy system, then are you going to mention chakra's ?
Now those that know me of old will know that I see no place at all in Reiki for the chakra system, it just isn't IMO needed, but there does have to be an awareness of it.

The main thing I think is to keep our own spiritual beliefs out of any training that we give. We may believe in angels and guides, but that is our belief. We may be Christian or Buddhist or what ever, but that once again is our belief. We are teaching our student about Reiki and also at the same time helping them/guiding them on their spiritual path, we are not giving them religious education.

The manual, that one day I may actually finish, is/will be split into sections and page colour coded. What is Reiki and what isn't will be clearly, or as clearly as can be, defined and although chakras, guides and angels have very much been introduced as Reiki to many people, none of those subjects have anything what so ever to do with the teachings of Mikao Usui et all and will be shown as such.

We as teachers really do have to sit down and think about what we are going to teach and how pure (?wrong word) we are going to be in what we teach.

Rob Spiller wrote: ...chakras... none of those subjects have anything what so ever to do with the teachings of Mikao Usui et all and will be shown as such.

I disagree. The fact that Usui taught the Seika Tanden shows that he did teach about Chakra's. Just using Japanese spirituality terminology instead of Chinese or Vedic.

And additionally, since Usui taught his own spirituality within his Reiki healing system, then it can be said that the Founder of this system didn't leave his own personal spirituality out of his teaching of Reiki.

So is Reiki a spiritual healing system or isn't it?

I think that is the crux of your query actually.

If Usui's spirituality is ok to teach, and mine fits the healing system just as well as his did, then why is it not ok to teach Reiki from my perspective. One that I understand.

I do understand the concept of honoring the lineage. I also understand that over time, things that withstand will adapt to fit new cultures and new times. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, goes unscathed by time and new places.

I think ultimately, for me personally, the trick will be to find a way to equally honor Usui and his system of Reiki as well as his spirituality, and also honor my own beliefs and spirituality as well. I think it lacks integrity and impeccability if I try to teach something that I don't fully believe or understand.

Thaak wrote:Not at all what I'm trying to say though.

no, i know it's not, it's what i'm now talking about, since you mentioned Chakras & endocrine glands, .

Thaak wrote:
Our culture doesn't study Japanese spirituality, which includes the Seika Tanden.

'Our' culture also can't be said to 'study' Indian/Vedic spirituality any more either.

Thaak wrote:
So why should I envelop myself in Japanese spirituality,

Because the system of Reiki centres around that, and the Japanese energetic system.

Thaak wrote:
which because of the way their culture is significantly and fundamentally different from ours, I wouldn't understand without many years of arduous study, just for Reiki.

Just for Reiki? Hehe, it's probably why Usui sensei only thought so few were to be taught level 2 & 3.

Besides, with respect, you've that opinion yet you're saying you still go ahead an learn something from another significantly & fundamentally different culture. You live in US, Chakras are from India.

Thaak wrote:
I have a system (Chakras) that I understand fairly well (although deeper study wouldn't hurt) with tons of literature to help, that seems to easily flow with what Reiki teaches.

Whatever one can superficiallly learn about the chakras, one can learn the same level about the Japanese energetic system. .

Thaak wrote:
If that is how I understand Reiki, then why wouldn't I teach it the way I understand it best? That would seem to me to be the best way I can communicate the lesson to my student, rather than using terms and spirituality that I don't understand. My lesson would probably come off without authenticity or as disingenuous.

Yes this is true. And no-one has a right to say one shouldn't teach the way they want, per se. However, as i pointed out, i personally feel a teacher is wrong to teach their own version of spirituality, yet use Usui sensei's name to get folks interested. And/or, not let any student know.

Thaak wrote:
Now of course the argument could be made, that I shouldn't teach Reiki until I fully understand the spirituality of Usui. But truly, who can say they do?

Not many nowadays. It's a conscious effort, and for some a matter of principle to try to find out though, .

Thaak wrote:
My point is, that the spirituality of Usui is not Reiki.

It's meant to be if it's labelled with Usui sensei's name.

Thaak wrote:
It supports Reiki, and it gives a practitioner a knowledge base by which to understand Reiki as best they can. But any spiritual system can do that.

Not if it's meant to be Usui Reiki. Using Usui sensei's name is meant to indentify a system with it being Usui sensei's system. This is the way it was until the Master-students on Takata sensei.

Thaak wrote:
If Reiki were rediscovered by a Chilean fisherman, we'd probably see an entirely different argument here... but Usui rediscovered it. As such, we see much of his personal spirituality interwoven into the system of healing.

Of course. BKS Iyengar created the school of Iyengar Yoga. The one i'm most familiar with. If i start to teach Bihar in an Iyengar class, i no longer teach Iyengar, which is his system. We of course see BKS Inyengars spirituality in his style of Yoga. Yet we trust his knowledge and spiritual expertise, and go leanr his style. If i teach yoga, and incorporate new things, it's no longer Inyengar, and i shouldn't say it is. In fact, i'd get into bother if i did. .

Take care
Wayne