Traditional

In the context of Reiki, we hear the word “traditional” used a lot.

So I'd like to know what different members of the Reiki lounge understand by “traditional”


thanks

Reiki is an alternative to Traditional Medicine.

Toma wrote:In the context of Reiki, we hear the word “traditional” used a lot.

So I'd like to know what different members of the Reiki lounge understand by “traditional”


thanks

Hi Toma

When I use the word "Traditional" in the context of Reiki, I would mean the way it was originally taught. For example:

Traditional Japanese Reiki = Reiki as it was taught in Japan, before it was re-introduced from the West (as far as we can ascertain! ).

Traditional Western Reiki = Reiki as it was taught by Hawayo Takata before some of her students decided to add extra things into the teachings.


Ai to Hikari
Colin

Something Colin said spurred me to write an opinion, though it's not directed at you colin, bro, but a general observation, .

There's an assumption (widely held) that what Takata sensei taught isn't what was taught in Japan. She did do her apprenticeship in Japan, trained by a student of Usui Sensei. so i dunno the logic in the assumption.

And, that what is taught in Japan now, is what was originally taught in Japan.

A style from Japan that says it is original hardly automatically means it is so. Of course, these original styles can only have a valid reason to exist if they are willing to not only propagate their claim (no matter how inconsistent they claims become), but also to point out 'apparent' inconsitencies in Usui Shiki Ryoho.

My own opinion is traditional Reiki is what Takata sensei taught.

Whilst western Reiki, is what her students tended to teach. (Takata sensei always said she taught as Hayashi sensei taught her).

If we look at what Takata sensei did actually teach, except for some changing of labels/names theres quite a Japanese aspect to it. And anyhow, Usui Shiki Ryoho isn't the only style to change things throughout the years. . We assume that Usui Shiki Ryoho has always been 'western', solely because students down in lineage changed things.

I't purely my own opinion, but a style that seems to have a form of initiation, and some spiritual/energy techniques, (no matter how new they are to the west), does not make that said style what Usui sensei & Hayashi sensei collectively taught. No matter if it's in Tokyo, or Toronto.

take care
Wayne

Something Colin said spurred me to write an opinion, though it's not directed at you colin, bro, but a general observation, .

Heh heh...I knew that would provoke a reply from you Wayne! And I know that you know that I know what I really mean...but on re-reading maybe it does sound a bit too simplistic!

There's an assumption (widely held) that what Takata sensei taught isn't what was taught in Japan. She did do her apprenticeship in Japan, trained by a student of Usui Sensei. so i dunno the logic in the assumption.

I do believe that Mrs Takata taught Reiki as she was taught it in Japan but maybe she did not teach everything in exactly the same way as she was taught and did not include some of the concepts she was taught because, apart from a handful of her students in the West, most of them were Westerners, who may not have been as open to the more oriental concepts and cultural differences.

Therefore, also she may not have added any core teachings, she certainly put her own "spin" on the teachings to allow them to be more easily digestible/acceptable by her target audience (for which we owe Mrs Takata a debt of gratitude as otherwise we may never have heard of Reiki in the West!). Much of what we now "assume" was taught in Japan about Reiki can indeed be found in Takata's notes, diary and notes of her early students but if these things were taught widely in her Reiki classes, rather than just hidden away in documents rarely seen by others (until their availablity on the internet), why did many of these concepts and teachings disappear from the teachings when some of Takata's students began teaching their non-Traditional Western Reiki?

And, that what is taught in Japan now, is what was originally taught in Japan.

Yes, I agree. I don't think there are any styles of Reiki now being taught in Japan that are completely free from any Western influence - even Jikiden and Komyo - as most teachers in these styles have now had contact with Western Reiki practitioners and their ideas, which in some cases may have been used to help reconstruct or fill in some of the gaps in "original" teachings. It maybe though that some Japanese styles had fewer gaps to fill?

My own opinion is traditional Reiki is what Takata sensei taught.

Agreed. Maybe we should all use the term "Traditional Reiki" (i.e. not Japanese or Western) as I think that term would cover the commonalities of what many of us believe is the core of Reiki without any of the add-ins, regardless of whether particular techniques and concepts have Japanese or Western names.

When it comes down to it, it is the commonalities of the core teachings which bring Reiki practitioners together and is really what matters.

I't purely my own opinion, but a style that seems to have a form of initiation, and some spiritual/energy techniques, (no matter how new they are to the west), does not make that said style what Usui sensei & Hayashi sensei collectively taught. No matter if it's in Tokyo, or Toronto.

Agreed!
Ai to Hikari
Colin

Colin wrote:
Heh heh...I knew that would provoke a reply from you Wayne! And I know that you know that I know what I really mean...but on re-reading maybe it does sound a bit too simplistic!

.

Colin wrote:[
I do believe that Mrs Takata taught Reiki as she was taught it in Japan but maybe she did not teach everything in exactly the same way as she was taught and did not include some of the concepts she was taught because, apart from a handful of her students in the West, most of them were Westerners, who may not have been as open to the more oriental concepts and cultural differences.

She mostly used different names with students tbh. If she had used the Japanese names, folks would easily say, yeah, a Japanese style. Though, does the inclusion of Japanese names only make it a Japanese style. She did say she taught as Hayashi sensei taught her.

Colin wrote:
Therefore, also she may not have added any core teachings, she certainly put her own "spin" on the teachings to allow them to be more easily digestible/acceptable by her target audience (for which we owe Mrs Takata a debt of gratitude as otherwise we may never have heard of Reiki in the West!).

I think i know what you're getting at here. In the stories she said. She was only repeating what Hayashi sensei told her first. Personally, and it's only an assumption, i find it hard to see Hayashi sensei lieing about his teacher.

Colin wrote:
Much of what we now "assume" was taught in Japan about Reiki can indeed be found in Takata's notes, diary and notes of her early students but if these things were taught widely in her Reiki classes, rather than just hidden away in documents rarely seen by others (until their availablity on the internet), why did many of these concepts and teachings disappear from the teachings when some of Takata's students began teaching their non-Traditional Western Reiki?

That is a very good question Colin. One i don't have the answer to.

Colin wrote:
Yes, I agree. I don't think there are any styles of Reiki now being taught in Japan that are completely free from any Western influence - even Jikiden and Komyo - as most teachers in these styles have now had contact with Western Reiki practitioners and their ideas, which in some cases may have been used to help reconstruct or fill in some of the gaps in "original" teachings. It maybe though that some Japanese styles had fewer gaps to fill?

I remember we had a chat about this before bro, i don't really care to now again, tbh, . I still think it's significant that Takata sensei was teaching level 1 in 1975 (?) in Japan , and when Mieko Mitsui went to Japan and researched Reiki, she found no mention of any styles. Only, she was the first to mention the Gakkai, on which her student, Hiroshi Doi, became the sole outside contact.

Colin wrote:
Agreed. Maybe we should all use the term "Traditional Reiki" (i.e. not Japanese or Western) as I think that term would cover the commonalities of what many of us believe is the core of Reiki without any of the add-ins, regardless of whether particular techniques and concepts have Japanese or Western names.

Yeah, i'd agree with that too buddy. .

Colin wrote:[
When it comes down to it, it is the commonalities of the core teachings which bring Reiki practitioners together and is really what matters.

This is also true bro. And the divine expereince we share.

take care
Wayne

Colin wrote:
When I use the word "Traditional" in the context of Reiki, I would mean the way it was originally taught. ...

Extracts from the Wikipedia entry for “Tradition”:

[italic emphasis is mine]

"A tradition is a practice, custom, or story that is memorized and passed down from generation to generation. ...

Traditions are often presumed to be ancient, unalterable, and deeply important, though they may sometimes be much less "natural" than is presumed.
Some traditions were deliberately invented for one reason or another, often to highlight or enhance the importance of a certain institution.

Traditions may also be changed to suit the needs of the day, and the changes can become accepted as a part of the ancient tradition.

A famous book on the subject is: The Invention of Tradition, edited by Eric Hobsbwan and Terence Ranger
Some examples include "the invention of tradition" in Africa and other colonial holdings by the occupying forces.
Requiring legitimacy, the colonial power would often invent a "tradition" which they could use to legitimize their own position.
For example, a certain succession to a chiefdom might be recognized by a colonial power as traditional in order to favour their own candidates for the job.
Often these inventions were based in some form of tradition, but were grossly exaggerated, distorted, or biased toward a particular interpretation.”


In my own mind, cannot help but see parallels here with the emergence of certain so-called Traditional Reiki Styles...




The blurb on the back of the 1992 paperback edition of “The Invention of Tradition” (Cambridge University Press ) states:

“Many of the traditions we think of as ancient in their origins were, in fact, invented comparatively recently.”

And from the introduction [Page 8] :

“Where the old ways are alive, traditions need be neither revived nor invented.
Yet it may be suggested that where they are invented, it is often not because the old ways are no longer available or viable, but because they are deliberately not used ...”




So, just how traditional is “Traditional”?

Or should that be, just how genuine is “Traditional”?




.
.

chi_solas wrote:Reiki is an alternative to Traditional Medicine.

I dissent. (Not a surprise, I'm sure.) I'd say that reiki is a form of traditional medicine. There are long traditions of reiki-like practices.

Bruce

Bruce wrote:

chi_solas wrote:Reiki is an alternative to Traditional Medicine.

I dissent. (Not a surprise, I'm sure.) I'd say that reiki is a form of traditional medicine. There are long traditions of reiki-like practices.

Bruce

As time progressed the inevetiable has
happened,it seems as though some folks
have broken from the tradition and thrown
out this, added that & created new names.
I have a book that claims to be the first
book written about Reiki,helping begin the
awaking that spread around the world a natual
healing,folk medicine, treating patients,animals
& plants. First published in Germany 1985.