Reiki can do no harm! Can Reiki do harm?

Split from. Attunement for young people. (chi_solas)

Pandora wrote:

Reikijim wrote:Hi Pandora,

Pandora wrote: Reiki can only do good.

I think generally speaking, this is a true statement. Yet I`ve heard of a few cases where such was not the case.

[. . . .]
RJ

Well I'd love to know how Reiki has harmed people...

[. . . .]

On another message board, someone wrote about her sleep being wrecked by someone else sending reiki to her hourly for a period of months. Without her consent, of course.

On yet another message board, someone vehemently insisted that reiki can't do any harm -- after all, that's what her teacher said, and she insulted those of us who said reiki shouldn't be given without permission. How dare we disagree with her and her teacher! She kept insisting, until she had a flare-up of her autimmune condition, and she and her husband applied reiki. At which time, the condition was so drastically exacerbated by the treatment that she backpedaled quickly on the issue of giving reiki without permission. (Yeah, I just had to bring up the question after she wrote about the autoimmune disorder experience. She became indignant, saying she'd learned more in the meantime. But think about people whom she misled by her misstatements before she learned more, I replied.)

And on that second-mentioned message board, a moderator mentioned that one of Takata's students admitted that the statement about reiki doing no harm was "overblown." The mod also mentioned that people with the condition of schizophrenia can misinterpret the presence of the energy, and react adversely. (No details were given re. adverse reaction to reiki by schizophrenia patients.)

It looks to me as if a relative principle (It's more difficult to cause harm in reiki than in some other modalities) was interpreted as an absolute principle (Reiki doesn't do harm, ever, period), and that the latter interpretation became widespread because somebody told somebody who told somebody else . . . .

But I believe that experience trumps dogma.

Also, beyond the issue of harm, the issue of autonomy should be considered in discussions of permission. Both issues are reflected in the medical standard of informed consent, and I don't believe we have any justification for being less ethical than doctors.

Bruce

Bruce wrote:

Pandora wrote:

Reikijim wrote:Hi Pandora,

Pandora wrote: Reiki can only do good.

I think generally speaking, this is a true statement. Yet I`ve heard of a few cases where such was not the case.

[. . . .]
RJ

Well I'd love to know how Reiki has harmed people...

[. . . .]

On another message board, someone wrote about her sleep being wrecked by someone else sending reiki to her hourly for a period of months. Without her consent, of course.

On yet another message board, someone vehemently insisted that reiki can't do any harm -- after all, that's what her teacher said, and she insulted those of us who said reiki shouldn't be given without permission. How dare we disagree with her and her teacher! She kept insisting, until she had a flare-up of her autimmune condition, and she and her husband applied reiki. At which time, the condition was so drastically exacerbated by the treatment that she backpedaled quickly on the issue of giving reiki without permission. (Yeah, I just had to bring up the question after she wrote about the autoimmune disorder experience. She became indignant, saying she'd learned more in the meantime. But think about people whom she misled by her misstatements before she learned more, I replied.)

And on that second-mentioned message board, a moderator mentioned that one of Takata's students admitted that the statement about reiki doing no harm was "overblown." The mod also mentioned that people with the condition of schizophrenia can misinterpret the presence of the energy, and react adversely. (No details were given re. adverse reaction to reiki by schizophrenia patients.)

It looks to me as if a relative principle (It's more difficult to cause harm in reiki than in some other modalities) was interpreted as an absolute principle (Reiki doesn't do harm, ever, period), and that the latter interpretation became widespread because somebody told somebody who told somebody else . . . .

But I believe that experience trumps dogma.

Also, beyond the issue of harm, the issue of autonomy should be considered in discussions of permission. Both issues are reflected in the medical standard of informed consent, and I don't believe we have any justification for being less ethical than doctors.

Bruce

Sorry to disagree Bruce but my take on these examples is that it wasn't the Reiki - the energy - that caused the harm. In the first instance it was the intent. Those of us who are spiritual healers are familiar with the concept of a person's own intent or energy being transferred to the recipient, and that's what the first one sounds like to me. The second one - was that Reiki trying to teach her something? In which case it did not do harm but did good. It might also have provoked a "healing crisis", which is familiar to holistic therapists, in which you get worse for a short time before you get better. That's the body's reaction to a therapeutic intervention - it's not the Reiki that's causing harm as the ultimate result is an improvement.

In the case of adults with psychosis, when I was a stress management counsellor I learnt that such people should not experience deep relaxation because it might trigger a relapse. I used to work with adults with moderate to severe mental health problems and would counsel such people out of any form of relaxation therapy. Reiki is one such therapy. Therefore when working with such people, if they experience an exacerbation of symptoms then it isn't the Reiki doing harm, but the method of application. Perhaps distance Reiki is indicated in these situations.

I am very firm on the fact that you have to get permission from the recipient of Reiki, by the way.

I don't know if you are familiar with Maureen Kelly's work? She is a Buddhist nun who has made a study of Reiki from a Buddhist perspective, and in her book "Reiki and the Healing Buddha" she concludes that Reiki is the gift of a Buddha who is pledged only to do good for humanity, which is why Reiki comes with its own protections. We still have to be sure that our intent to work for the highest good is pure, though. We are only human after all!

Bruce wrote:

On another message board, someone wrote about her sleep being wrecked by someone else sending reiki to her hourly for a period of months. Without her consent, of course.

On yet another message board, someone vehemently insisted that reiki can't do any harm -- after all, that's what her teacher said, and she insulted those of us who said reiki shouldn't be given without permission. How dare we disagree with her and her teacher! She kept insisting, until she had a flare-up of her autimmune condition, and she and her husband applied reiki. At which time, the condition was so drastically exacerbated by the treatment that she backpedaled quickly on the issue of giving reiki without permission. (Yeah, I just had to bring up the question after she wrote about the autoimmune disorder experience. She became indignant, saying she'd learned more in the meantime. But think about people whom she misled by her misstatements before she learned more, I replied.)

And on that second-mentioned message board, a moderator mentioned that one of Takata's students admitted that the statement about reiki doing no harm was "overblown." The mod also mentioned that people with the condition of schizophrenia can misinterpret the presence of the energy, and react adversely. (No details were given re. adverse reaction to reiki by schizophrenia patients.)

It looks to me as if a relative principle (It's more difficult to cause harm in reiki than in some other modalities) was interpreted as an absolute principle (Reiki doesn't do harm, ever, period), and that the latter interpretation became widespread because somebody told somebody who told somebody else . . . .

But I believe that experience trumps dogma.

Also, beyond the issue of harm, the issue of autonomy should be considered in discussions of permission. Both issues are reflected in the medical standard of informed consent, and I don't believe we have any justification for being less ethical than doctors.

Bruce

Bruce,

I hear your story, and I don’t disagree that an exacerbation of the condition happened when Reiki was applied. However, this does not mean that Reiki caused the harm.

One thing that I’ve noticed, is that westerners tend to work with all the subtlety of a bull in a china shop. And that goes for everything from Investment banking to cake baking. It certainly includes modern medicine and Reiki.

It’s the aggressive, combative stance that everything can be “beaten.” And when you approach a disease with that attitude and intent, no matter what system you use for healing, you are giving that disease validity and fuel. Not to mention the aggressive and combative attitude does not create a conducive atmosphere for healing.

Based on your story above, this woman was probably such an aggressive user of Reiki.

But if you are able to just calmly sit with the client, with the intent that what they need will be done, while remembering your own divine spark, filled with grace and love, then no harm can happen.

Furthermore, just because a condition worsens, does not mean that Reiki is causing harm, even if you approach the healing session as I’ve described above, and it can be obviously proven that Reiki caused the worsened condition. What if the person needs to pass on from this physical existence? What if it is their time? What if their resistance to such, which is what Reiki is trying to help facilitate gracefully, is what causes a worsening of their condition?

So again, I reiterate. Reiki itself causes no harm. It is the user of Reiki that causes the harm.

Y'all can disagree; that's okay. But I'm very skeptical of explanations that are "unfalsifiable," along the lines of Freudian psychology. (E.g., if I act destructively, it's because I hate my mother. But if I don't act destructively? Then it's because I'm compensating for hating my mother. There might actually be a simpler explanation -- in fact, I don't hate my mother.)

Andy, if intent can affect the results of using reiki, so that harm occurs, then it's of no consolation to explain to someone that "Well, it's not reiki itself that caused the harm. It was the intent of the person who sent it to you even though you didn't want it." Or "even though you weren't consulted." The point is, the prospective recipient's capacity to choose should be honored..

Pandora, the discussion on the other board re. reaction of schizophrenic patients to reiki was in the context of talking about distant healing. You're saying it's not reiki that does harm to those people; instead, it's the relaxation that reiki induces. Come on. If you really think that means reiki doesn't harm, then ANYTHING can be justified as not causing harm.

Your invoking the idea of "healing crisis" for the autoimmune condition sufferer is particularly funny, because she relied heavily on that idea when she was stridently insisting that unpermissioned sending of reiki is okay. Again, she recanted quickly when it happened to her.

You asked about whether reiki was trying to . . . . I'm not convinced that reiki ever tries to do anything.

Now, going back to invoking "healing crisis" to justify exacerbation of symptoms -- can you imagine someone being distracted by a healing crisis while driving a vehicle? "But that's okay, because it was just a healing crisis." Uh, . . . .

Really, would you regard these things as justification for anything that wasn't called "reiki?"

Yes, I'm familiar with the book Reiki and the Healing Buddha. Reading the master symbol in it is what brought reiki into me without the intervention of a practitioner for the first time. The author can conclude whatever she wants. Again, I say that experience trumps dogma, including Kelly's dogma.

Bruce

Well it's obvious we will have to agree to disagree on this.

I'm not saying the "healing crisis" is trivial, but it is a recognised side effect of many holistic therapies (if not all of them). If you don't tell your clients about it then as Dragonfly has said, you're doing them a disservice.

The thing I said about deep relaxation is also recognised by the medical profession. It was over 12 years ago when I was practising, and I'm not sure I could find the reference now. The received Reiki wisdom (or what I was told by my RM) is that the client should ideally be lying down and relaxing ready to receive distant healing. My point is that it is the relaxation that provokes the psychosis. This effect has been noted in patients with psychosis who aren't receiving Reiki. In my book, therefore, it cannot be ignored, regardless of whether you believe it happens or not. Later tonight I'll try and find you a reference for this.

My point about Reiki teaching lessons is taken directly from my experience - and as you say, experience trumps dogma!

Pandora wrote:The received Reiki wisdom (or what I was told by my RM) is that the client should ideally be lying down and relaxing ready to receive distant healing. My point is that it is the relaxation that provokes the psychosis. This effect has been noted in patients with psychosis who aren't receiving Reiki. In my book, therefore, it cannot be ignored, regardless of whether you believe it happens or not.

You're missing the point. If reiki induces the relaxation, and the relaxation provokes the psychosis, then . . . .

Using your sort of reasoning: Curare induces muscle relaxation. Such relaxation can result in stopping the recipient's heart. But if the reicipient's heart stops and never beats again, well, that doesn't mean curare harmed him. Instead, it was the relaxation that did it.

Later tonight I'll try and find you a reference for this.

I hope you find it; I'll be interested. My own point remains as I've stated above.

My point about Reiki teaching lessons is taken directly from my experience - and as you say, experience trumps dogma!

Well, to take your ipse dixit sort of approach to things, it's not that reiki teaches lessons. It's that lessons are inferred by the people who observe reiki. There; everything explained.

Bruce

Reiki can do no harm. It may peel away
some emotional layers that have never been
dealt with. Folks may experience feelings
that need to be addressed by a professional
physcologist. Reiki practitioners are not
unlike M.D.'s who often refer their clients
to another DR who specialize in one area of
the body. I am not saying we are like M.D's
just that we are not qualified to take on more
than what Reiki energy offers. It is a copout
to blame Reiki for not being able to sleep.
People generally lose sleep because they have
problems/fears or do not trust the process of
life.

chi_solas wrote:Reiki can do no harm. It may peel away
some emotional layers that have never been
dealt with. Folks may experience feelings
that need to be addressed by a professional
physcologist. Reiki practitioners are not
unlike M.D.'s who often refer their clients
to another DR who specialize in one area of
the body. I am not saying we are like M.D's
just that we are not qualified to take on more
than what Reiki energy offers. It is a copout
to blame Reiki for not being able to sleep.
People generally lose sleep because they have
problems/fears or do not trust the process of
life.

Bridget,

How do you know whether the person who said she was being woken up every hour through the night because of reiki being sent to her was just reciting "a copout?" Why do you think you know enough about her to say she was lying about that?

Bruce

References for you:

http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/relaxation-techniques-000359.htm

"People with psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia or psychosis should avoid relaxation therapy unless recommended by a qualified health care provider. Relaxation techniques that involve inward focusing may intensify a depressed mood, although this has not been clearly shown in scientific studies." http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8513/34968/358865.html

"The primary uses of hypnosis and relaxation techniques are in anxiety, in disorders with ... It should be avoided in established or borderline psychosis and ..."
www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7221/1346 by A Vickers - 1999 - (unfortunately you need to be a subscriber to see the full article)

I have to say there are other articles recommending relaxation for some conditions, however schizophrenia doesn't seem to be among them.

Also, I question whether Reiki induces relaxation. Personally I rarely experience the relaxed state I get from Autogenic Training when I do Reiki self-healing. Certainly when I am giving healing I am in a state of heightened awareness - possibly physically more relaxed but not mentally.

OK so I may infer lessons that Reiki has taught me. But I do maintain that they wouldn't have happened were it not for the Reiki.

If you believe in karma and that Reiki has a role in dealing with it, then it has a role in teaching you lessons and helping you assimilate what you have learn. I believe that Reiki will help me along my spiritual path, and it does this by bringing me situations and getting me where I need to be in order to fulfil my destiny. Sometimes those lessons are painful! But that doesn't mean they are not doing me good. Getting a tooth extracted is painful, but will do you good if it is infected!

Bruce wrote:

chi_solas wrote:Reiki can do no harm. It may peel away
some emotional layers that have never been
dealt with. Folks may experience feelings
that need to be addressed by a professional
physcologist. Reiki practitioners are not
unlike M.D.'s who often refer their clients
to another DR who specialize in one area of
the body. I am not saying we are like M.D's
just that we are not qualified to take on more
than what Reiki energy offers. It is a copout
to blame Reiki for not being able to sleep.
People generally lose sleep because they have
problems/fears or do not trust the process of
life.

Bridget,



How do you know whether the person who said she was being woken up every hour through the night because of reiki being sent to her was just reciting "a copout?" Why do you think you know enough about her to say she was lying about that?

Bruce

It is a copout to blame Reiki for not being able to sleep.

Bruce please do not take my words
and spin them into what you want
to hear for the sake of making your
self right. IMO Reiki can do no harm.

Oops forgot to preview

Pandora wrote:References for you:

http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/relaxation-techniques-000359.htm

"People with psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia or psychosis should avoid relaxation therapy unless recommended by a qualified health care provider. Relaxation techniques that involve inward focusing may intensify a depressed mood, although this has not been clearly shown in scientific studies." http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8513/34968/358865.html

"The primary uses of hypnosis and relaxation techniques are in anxiety, in disorders with ... It should be avoided in established or borderline psychosis and ..."
www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7221/1346 by A Vickers - 1999 - (unfortunately you need to be a subscriber to see the full article)

Thank you.

Also, I question whether Reiki induces relaxation. Personally I rarely experience the relaxed state I get from Autogenic Training when I do Reiki self-healing. Certainly when I am giving healing I am in a state of heightened awareness - possibly physically more relaxed but not mentally.

I may have been confused by your reference to relaxation and reiki and distant sessions. The fuller context for discussion on the other board was about unpermissioned sending of reiki to schizophrenic patients. They weren't going through any relaxation sort of protocol to receive reiki. Thanks for clarifying what you meant about relaxation.

OK so I may infer lessons that Reiki has taught me. But I do maintain that they wouldn't have happened were it not for the Reiki.

If you believe in karma and that Reiki has a role in dealing with it, then it has a role in teaching you lessons and helping you assimilate what you have learn.

None of which compels you to believe that reiki decides to teach anything.

Bruce

"IMO Reiki can do no harm." Bridget, that's the extent of the substantive content of what you said. It's good that you see it now.

But in your earlier message, you presented AS FACT the assertion that reiki can't harm. You then launched an attack on the personality of the one who reported that periodic unpermissioned sending of reiki had wrecked her sleep, saying she was indulging in "a copout." So again -- why do you think you know enough about her to say that she's not reporting the truth?

If you're saying reiki can do no harm, and therefore someone who claims reiki harmed her must be invoking a copout based on the "fact" that reiki can do no harm . . . uh, do you see that your whole train of "reasoning" collapses if your premise is wrong? Do you also see that merely asserting a premise doesn't make it a fact???

BTW, practitioners of other energy arts understand that exposure to high-intensity energy can interfere w/ sleep. Being able to fall asleep "in spite of" having practied is one of the great benefits of grounding exercises.

Bruce

Bruce wrote:Y'all can disagree; that's okay. But I'm very skeptical of explanations that are "unfalsifiable," along the lines of Freudian psychology. (E.g., if I act destructively, it's because I hate my mother. But if I don't act destructively? Then it's because I'm compensating for hating my mother. There might actually be a simpler explanation -- in fact, I don't hate my mother.)

Andy, if intent can affect the results of using reiki, so that harm occurs, then it's of no consolation to explain to someone that "Well, it's not reiki itself that caused the harm. It was the intent of the person who sent it to you even though you didn't want it." Or "even though you weren't consulted." The point is, the prospective recipient's capacity to choose should be honored..

Pandora, the discussion on the other board re. reaction of schizophrenic patients to reiki was in the context of talking about distant healing. You're saying it's not reiki that does harm to those people; instead, it's the relaxation that reiki induces. Come on. If you really think that means reiki doesn't harm, then ANYTHING can be justified as not causing harm.

Your invoking the idea of "healing crisis" for the autoimmune condition sufferer is particularly funny, because she relied heavily on that idea when she was stridently insisting that unpermissioned sending of reiki is okay. Again, she recanted quickly when it happened to her.

You asked about whether reiki was trying to . . . . I'm not convinced that reiki ever tries to do anything.

Now, going back to invoking "healing crisis" to justify exacerbation of symptoms -- can you imagine someone being distracted by a healing crisis while driving a vehicle? "But that's okay, because it was just a healing crisis." Uh, . . . .

Really, would you regard these things as justification for anything that wasn't called "reiki?"

Yes, I'm familiar with the book Reiki and the Healing Buddha. Reading the master symbol in it is what brought reiki into me without the intervention of a practitioner for the first time. The author can conclude whatever she wants. Again, I say that experience trumps dogma, including Kelly's dogma.

Bruce

Bruce,

Your skepticism is duly noted. The tone of what you wrote appears to be a bit confrontational though, which doesn’t help the discussion at all.

This thread, and my argument wasn’t about going about giving Reiki without permission. I agree, that one should have permission first. Always.

If you want to discuss the merits of what I was specifically saying, fine. But lets not put words in my mouth eh?

Thaak wrote:Bruce,

Your skepticism is duly noted. The tone of what you wrote appears to be a bit confrontational though, which doesn’t help the discussion at all.

This thread, and my argument wasn’t about going about giving Reiki without permission. I agree, that one should have permission first. Always.

If you want to discuss the merits of what I was specifically saying, fine. But lets not put words in my mouth eh?

I wasn't saying that you were espousing giving reiki without permission. I didn't think I was putting words in your mouth.

The first posting on this topic was about whether children have capacity to really give permission: "I think what bothers me is the permanence of the initiation. I do not believe that this path of reiki to be for everyone, and should be entered into with some understanding of what one is deciding to undertake. Does a 9 year old have the ability to comprehend the aspects of this path?" Which is why I referred to the permission issue. I came from the link that Wayne posted on another thread, and did not read all of the messages on this thread. If the topic veered away from capacity and permission in between the first post and my responses, then I missed it.

Bruce

Bruce wrote:
Using your sort of reasoning: Curare induces muscle relaxation. Such relaxation can result in stopping the recipient's heart. But if the reicipient's heart stops and never beats again, well, that doesn't mean curare harmed him. Instead, it was the relaxation that did it.

Come on! Lets not be disingenuous here with our examples. And I believe that in many cases, such as drowning or asphyxiation, you'll find on a death certificate that the cause of death was drowning or asphyxiation. Not death by pillow or death by water.

Additionally, while we are taught that our client should lay down to receive a treatment, and that they often go into deep, deep relaxations, does not mean this is the only way to give a Reiki treatment.

I had a young girl client who while I was giving the session, was extremely distraught by a bad dream she'd had the night before. She was also a little chatter-box and wouldn't stop talking about things. So rather than trying to force her to be still or quiet, I just touched her gently and listened to her. During the course of our discussion, because I did reply some, her anxiety over the dream visibly and audibly was negated. Her explanation to her father who doesn't know anything about Reiki was, "I was all upset and he put his hands on me, and then I wasn't!"

A hammer can be used to build a house, but it can also be used to kill someone. But that doesn't mean that the hammer can cause harm. Sure, the potential for harm is there, because it can be used as an instrument of death. But the harm-causing is actually done by a person. Not the hammer.

There is potential for harm when a Reiki session is given, sure, based on the practitioner bulling in like a bulldozer without knowing what they are doing. Or at least without having any knowledge of what could happen. But that doesn't mean Reiki causes harm. It means that the person "using" Reiki, can cause harm, because they are actively doing something aggressively with something that is supposed to be about love, grace, and beauty.

As for the mental health issues and relaxation? I have no knowledge of those things, so I have no idea what would happen should someone go into a deep relaxation while I sat with them, and they had schizophrenia.

Bruce wrote:Well, to take your ipse dixit sort of approach to things, it's not that reiki teaches lessons. It's that lessons are inferred by the people who observe reiki. There; everything explained.

Bruce

Sure, that's an appropriate statement. The common colloquialism is that Reiki teaches, or that Reiki heals. But even Wayne will agree with me, that it isn't Reiki that heals, but rather Reiki that helps to bring a clients body back to some sort of balance so that it can heal itself. So sure, I can agree with your statement.

On Reiki4all, a young woman came on whom had a terrible time post-initiation. I decided to try to help. We couldn't pin down what was wrong, but heck, she was oging through a terrbile time, and was almost ready for suicide. We tried to troubleshoot, asnd it was clear this started immediately from her initiation.

short sotry is, she had lyme's disease. Her consultant, whom also has it, said energy6 therpaies, such as Reiki, made her worse also. Heck, even the computer & television did also.

It's been pointed out that for whatever reaosn, lyme's disease shouldn't usually do this. Though, i'm speaking the truth as she saw it. Reiki, was a catlyst for her experiencign some of the worst health of her life. course, it can be sugested a healing crises. I gotta say though, i was sitting this side of the atlantic, with another human in USA whom life was potentially in danger via suicide over her symtpoms, and what alleivated it was no Reiki, and away from energy outlets.

We can sit in our comptuer chairsd and say this ot that, but she was there. She knows better than us 'arm-chair doctors'. And, her own doctor confirmed it with her expereince also.

Let's get real. If as complementary therapists, there is the potential for a contra-indication like this (or some reports in Kundlaini Reiki), then we have a duty to set our ego aside, and listen to these reports.

wther it was the clients response or Reiki itself, is immaterial. That fact is, there have been reports of Reiki causing displeaasure, right up to suicidal tendancies. As we can then see, sometimes, occurences happen that show problems can arise form a Reiki session, we do a service to ourselves to realise, that sometimes, dogma is'nt useful. Big deal if it's one person in 1 billion. We're here to help others, not enter into a process that may be unbearable for them. Least we can do is become aware of the possibility.

If the healings crises (if it is that), is so bad as folks have reported expereinces, it negates the reason to do Reiki in the first place at those times. We gotta accept then, Reiki can be a catalyst for bad experiences.



I've a theory why this kinda thign happens. Course, a person is the only true healer. It makes no sense though, that a person's own inate healing, would push the body so close to distruction, if not mental torture. That's too dangerous for it to to willingly. Reiki is my spark of divinity in action. Course, it ellcits a response in another. What if though, it wasn't totally down to the other person. As it's of ocurse an aspect of the divine, it's still my aspect of the divine.

If all aspects of the divine are the same, hands up who woudl accpet a Reiki session form Hitler? If, all he was doing was Reiki, hehe.

Take care
Wayne

Pandora wrote:

Bruce wrote:

Pandora wrote:

Reikijim wrote:Hi Pandora,

Pandora wrote: Reiki can only do good.

I think generally speaking, this is a true statement. Yet I`ve heard of a few cases where such was not the case.

[. . . .]
RJ

Well I'd love to know how Reiki has harmed people...

[. . . .]

On another message board, someone wrote about her sleep being wrecked by someone else sending reiki to her hourly for a period of months. Without her consent, of course.

On yet another message board, someone vehemently insisted that reiki can't do any harm -- after all, that's what her teacher said, and she insulted those of us who said reiki shouldn't be given without permission. How dare we disagree with her and her teacher! She kept insisting, until she had a flare-up of her autimmune condition, and she and her husband applied reiki. At which time, the condition was so drastically exacerbated by the treatment that she backpedaled quickly on the issue of giving reiki without permission. (Yeah, I just had to bring up the question after she wrote about the autoimmune disorder experience. She became indignant, saying she'd learned more in the meantime. But think about people whom she misled by her misstatements before she learned more, I replied.)

And on that second-mentioned message board, a moderator mentioned that one of Takata's students admitted that the statement about reiki doing no harm was "overblown." The mod also mentioned that people with the condition of schizophrenia can misinterpret the presence of the energy, and react adversely. (No details were given re. adverse reaction to reiki by schizophrenia patients.)

It looks to me as if a relative principle (It's more difficult to cause harm in reiki than in some other modalities) was interpreted as an absolute principle (Reiki doesn't do harm, ever, period), and that the latter interpretation became widespread because somebody told somebody who told somebody else . . . .

But I believe that experience trumps dogma.

Also, beyond the issue of harm, the issue of autonomy should be considered in discussions of permission. Both issues are reflected in the medical standard of informed consent, and I don't believe we have any justification for being less ethical than doctors.

Bruce

Sorry to disagree Bruce but my take on these examples is that it wasn't the Reiki - the energy - that caused the harm. In the first instance it was the intent. Those of us who are spiritual healers are familiar with the concept of a person's own intent or energy being transferred to the recipient, and that's what the first one sounds like to me. The second one - was that Reiki trying to teach her something? In which case it did not do harm but did good. It might also have provoked a "healing crisis", which is familiar to holistic therapists, in which you get worse for a short time before you get better. That's the body's reaction to a therapeutic intervention - it's not the Reiki that's causing harm as the ultimate result is an improvement.

In the case of adults with psychosis, when I was a stress management counsellor I learnt that such people should not experience deep relaxation because it might trigger a relapse. I used to work with adults with moderate to severe mental health problems and would counsel such people out of any form of relaxation therapy. Reiki is one such therapy. Therefore when working with such people, if they experience an exacerbation of symptoms then it isn't the Reiki doing harm, but the method of application. Perhaps distance Reiki is indicated in these situations.

I am very firm on the fact that you have to get permission from the recipient of Reiki, by the way.

I don't know if you are familiar with Maureen Kelly's work? She is a Buddhist nun who has made a study of Reiki from a Buddhist perspective, and in her book "Reiki and the Healing Buddha" she concludes that Reiki is the gift of a Buddha who is pledged only to do good for humanity, which is why Reiki comes with its own protections. We still have to be sure that our intent to work for the highest good is pure, though. We are only human after all!

Hi Pandora,

I`ve been in this discussion a few times in the past...

I`ve seen good points, on both sides of the debate. I will, for the sake of argument at this point, agree with you that Reiki can do no harm...ok?

But I would like to pose a couple of questions.

Do you feel that there can be a point in time when Reiki should not be used? Are there points in time for a recipient, where Reiki is a better choice than other times?

If administered at a less appropriate time , could this be, not to the best benefit of the recipient?


RJ

Milarepa wrote:On Reiki4all, a young woman came on whom had a terrible time post-initiation. I decided to try to help. We couldn't pin down what was wrong, but heck, she was oging through a terrbile time, and was almost ready for suicide. We tried to troubleshoot, asnd it was clear this started immediately from her initiation.

short sotry is, she had lyme's disease. Her consultant, whom also has it, said energy6 therpaies, such as Reiki, made her worse also. Heck, even the computer & television did also.

It's been pointed out that for whatever reaosn, lyme's disease shouldn't usually do this. Though, i'm speaking the truth as she saw it. Reiki, was a catlyst for her experiencign some of the worst health of her life. course, it can be sugested a healing crises. I gotta say though, i was sitting this side of the atlantic, with another human in USA whom life was potentially in danger via suicide over her symtpoms, and what alleivated it was no Reiki, and away from energy outlets.

We can sit in our comptuer chairsd and say this ot that, but she was there. She knows better than us 'arm-chair doctors'. And, her own doctor confirmed it with her expereince also.

Let's get real. If as complementary therapists, there is the potential for a contra-indication like this (or some reports in Kundlaini Reiki), then we have a duty to set our ego aside, and listen to these reports.

wther it was the clients response or Reiki itself, is immaterial. That fact is, there have been reports of Reiki causing displeaasure, right up to suicidal tendancies. As we can then see, sometimes, occurences happen that show problems can arise form a Reiki session, we do a service to ourselves to realise, that sometimes, dogma is'nt useful. Big deal if it's one person in 1 billion. We're here to help others, not enter into a process that may be unbearable for them. Least we can do is become aware of the possibility.

If the healings crises (if it is that), is so bad as folks have reported expereinces, it negates the reason to do Reiki in the first place at those times. We gotta accept then, Reiki can be a catalyst for bad experiences.



I've a theory why this kinda thign happens. Course, a person is the only true healer. It makes no sense though, that a person's own inate healing, would push the body so close to distruction, if not mental torture. That's too dangerous for it to to willingly. Reiki is my spark of divinity in action. Course, it ellcits a response in another. What if though, it wasn't totally down to the other person. As it's of ocurse an aspect of the divine, it's still my aspect of the divine.

If all aspects of the divine are the same, hands up who woudl accpet a Reiki session form Hitler? If, all he was doing was Reiki, hehe.

Take care
Wayne

Very well stated, Wayne. BTW, it's thought that some forms of Lyme disease are autoimmune responses. From what I've seen, yang energies like reiki ("fire" based, and flowing from the sky downward) can exacerbate autoimmune conditions. It fits with the experience of the person on another forum I mentioned earlier, who'd insisted on reiki doing no harm, then changed her mind after her own autoimmune flare-up. When I've worked on treating people w/ such conditions, yin energy ("water" based, relatively cooling, and flowing from the ground upward) has led to better results. (In particular, using yin energy to neturalize overactive heart fire, and sending the resulting mixture into the bone marrow.)

What really irks me is how some people use the term "healing crisis" to dismiss the recipient's report of what happened. A survey of the literature shows that a "healing crisis" is very temporary, and that the "patient" feels ill but is functional during that temporary phase of adjustment. But some people are abusing the term by using it to describe things that are longer-term and debilitating. In other words, they're invoking the term to justify their belief system rather than even just considering the possibility that real harm might result from some applications of reiki.

Thanks for the chance to vent. And thanks, again, for relating your experience.

Bruce

Bruce wrote:

BTW, practitioners of other energy arts understand that exposure to high-intensity energy can interfere w/ sleep. Being able to fall asleep "in spite of" having practied is one of the great benefits of grounding exercises.

Bruce

Bruce are you a Reiki Practitioner?

chi_solas wrote:

Bruce wrote:

BTW, practitioners of other energy arts understand that exposure to high-intensity energy can interfere w/ sleep. Being able to fall asleep "in spite of" having practied is one of the great benefits of grounding exercises.

Bruce

Bruce are you a Reiki Practitioner?

Yes.

Bruce

Jim asked me: "Do you feel that there can be a point in time when Reiki should not be used? Are there points in time for a recipient, where Reiki is a better choice than other times?

If administered at a less appropriate time , could this be, not to the best benefit of the recipient?" (didn't feel like doing the quote button - too much quoting in original message!)

If the intended recipient does not want Reiki then of course it should not be used. Someone (and I have come across this) may not want Reiki because it's "foreign", but will respond to "spiritual healing" because they know about it. The best part about having more than one practice under your belt is being able to use it. If, for example, someone came to me having trouble sleeping because they were exhausted, then I would recommend aromatherapy massage for the physical symptoms, maybe some crystal healing for the burn-out and then, when they were in a better place mentally and physically, maybe some Reiki or SKHM. Abraham Maslow once said "To the man whose only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail". I'm so glad I was able to learn other therapies.

I'm not saying that Reiki wouldn't be beneficial in the first session, if you were not able to deal with the physical symptoms by using bodywork, then you would use whatever you have to hand. But what I'm saying is that the client may respond better to treating the whole person using a combination of therapies, including some subtle Earth-based energy.

Pandora wrote:Jim asked me: "Do you feel that there can be a point in time when Reiki should not be used? Are there points in time for a recipient, where Reiki is a better choice than other times?

If administered at a less appropriate time , could this be, not to the best benefit of the recipient?" (didn't feel like doing the quote button - too much quoting in original message!)

If the intended recipient does not want Reiki then of course it should not be used. Someone (and I have come across this) may not want Reiki because it's "foreign", but will respond to "spiritual healing" because they know about it. The best part about having more than one practice under your belt is being able to use it. If, for example, someone came to me having trouble sleeping because they were exhausted, then I would recommend aromatherapy massage for the physical symptoms, maybe some crystal healing for the burn-out and then, when they were in a better place mentally and physically, maybe some Reiki or SKHM. Abraham Maslow once said "To the man whose only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail". I'm so glad I was able to learn other therapies.

I'm not saying that Reiki wouldn't be beneficial in the first session, if you were not able to deal with the physical symptoms by using bodywork, then you would use whatever you have to hand. But what I'm saying is that the client may respond better to treating the whole person using a combination of therapies, including some subtle Earth-based energy.

Hi Pandora,

I guess...what I got from your reply was that if a person does not want Reiki it should not be used. Well of course, that`s their right.

I guess you must mean that the only "less appropriate time" is when they don`t want it?

Yet, I really can`t see where you`ve answered my question...sorry, read your post three times...I`m not getting it. Could you clarify? Sorry to be a bother...

RJ

Reikijim wrote:

Pandora wrote:Jim asked me: "Do you feel that there can be a point in time when Reiki should not be used? Are there points in time for a recipient, where Reiki is a better choice than other times?

If administered at a less appropriate time , could this be, not to the best benefit of the recipient?" (didn't feel like doing the quote button - too much quoting in original message!)

If the intended recipient does not want Reiki then of course it should not be used. Someone (and I have come across this) may not want Reiki because it's "foreign", but will respond to "spiritual healing" because they know about it. The best part about having more than one practice under your belt is being able to use it. If, for example, someone came to me having trouble sleeping because they were exhausted, then I would recommend aromatherapy massage for the physical symptoms, maybe some crystal healing for the burn-out and then, when they were in a better place mentally and physically, maybe some Reiki or SKHM. Abraham Maslow once said "To the man whose only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail". I'm so glad I was able to learn other therapies.

I'm not saying that Reiki wouldn't be beneficial in the first session, if you were not able to deal with the physical symptoms by using bodywork, then you would use whatever you have to hand. But what I'm saying is that the client may respond better to treating the whole person using a combination of therapies, including some subtle Earth-based energy.

Hi Pandora,

I guess...what I got from your reply was that if a person does not want Reiki it should not be used. Well of course, that`s their right.

I guess you must mean that the only "less appropriate time" is when they don`t want it?

Yet, I really can`t see where you`ve answered my question...sorry, read your post three times...I`m not getting it. Could you clarify? Sorry to be a bother...

RJ

Sorry Jim I thought I had. Perhaps you could rephrase your question to ask it in the positive rather than the negative?

Colin wrote:

As I was typing that, the thought came to my mind that if it is not us, as Reiki Practitioners and/Teachers who control or direct what Reiki actually does this presumably applies to attunements as well as treatments.

So, maybe if we try to attune or treat someone who really does not want to be attuned or treated then we don't really have any influence on whether an attunement occurs or a healing happens - the outcome is up to the recipient (and maybe the Universe) in both cases.

We're all 'taught' by our peers not to attempt to 'control' Reiki. then agian, we're all taught things by our peers that is sheer rhetoric, and wrong.

We control Reiki everytime we decide to use it, or not. when i'm in bed at night beside the missus, i stop Reiki, simply by wishing so, if she doesn't give permission. So, we can control if we wish, .

directing Reiki. Well, i've never tried to 'direct' it, since it doen't follow a linear route to begin with, hehe. It doesn't 'flow' from parts of my body, through a route, to the other person. It's a constant around me, this is why we're protected with Reiki always. What i have done, is focus my awareness in the part being treated, during Reiki, It's said - 'energy goes where attention goes', hehe. I guess that's directing Reiki.

I don't need to let Reiki 'do it's thing', as it's me using my spark of divinity, to enable another to experience something, i'm very aware i am already quite active in the whole thing. Reiki bieng 'passive' is, in some ways, a misnomer, .

Take care
Wayne

I just lost a posting a hour ago.
Here goes,

colin
I can only talk about my own personal
experience. I see Reiki energy as a
peeling away of emotions that I was
unaware had built up; the sort that
you shrug off put behind you or so you
think. When I had my first Reiki session
it was a pleasant experience similar to
an acupuncture treatment. I was not aware
of a "divine spark" but I guess there was
a "divine agenda" or at least I seem to be
drawn to follow this thing called Ray- key.
between sessions there must have been a
subtle change happening. I included Reiki as
another alternative healing tool. It was not
until almost a year after I had healed that
I became attuned to the Reiki system. I can
only wonder what "if" I had dismissed Reiki
after my first session as just a pleasant
experience and not included it as another
healing tool. During my healing journey Reiki
certainly lead me in a spiritual direction I
had never experienced in my lifetime as a
devoted member of organized church activities.
I hear Reiki folks making statements like Reiki
found me. It is from that point of view that I
believe if folks are introduced to "formal"
Reiki they have the choice, to think about it to
use it, or reject it. People will come to Reiki
when Reiki finds them. It may not happen over
night. I need to think more about Andy's seed
for myself the seed as it were was planted during
my sessions. Maybe I'm mis-understanding the seed
theory.