No Desire, No Purpose

[Ruth]

Sorry if this is off topic, but it is something that really intersts me and plays a big part in my life.

Like I said, this is what is widely taught, but I have some problems with that idea. You see, Reiki is a lot like Spirit Release... I learned the hard way that people can seem to be asking, or say that they give permission, but it just ain't so...

This is a difficult one. What part of the person is being 'asked' (higher or lower self) and yes, they may completely contradict each other, and then, what is the best 'treatment' for that person to undertake.... I have no doubt that too much energy administered in the wrong way, at the 'wrong' time could have a pretty shocking result. But then, spirit release sounds more like a form of psychic combat than reiki, which thus far, I have found to be quite passive.

This is not to say that something that's passive will not become a complete waste of time if it goes to the wrong person for the wrong reasons. That would be quite similar to the energy drain to STS. Its not really benefiting anyone. But, at least you wouldn't have to crow bar some demon away from its psychic attachment. That would be pretty scary, especially if the person to whom they were attached wasn't ready for it; didn't know what it was; and really had no clue how to stop it from coming back. Sadly they may have even liked to have it around. Pretty nasty parasites they are.

I've had somebody attempt to do a spirit release on me some years ago. I think it probably came back although with 'work' and other attempts, I'm not sure if it is still around or in the same form. Hard to say. Although, at any one time, I think it would be pretty fair to say I've got a lot of attachments. Not all of them would be the really, really nasty ones that require mortal combat to remove. I've done some spirit release on myself on one occasion, with amusing results. Its not something I'd want to get into without coming from a position of strength. That's for sure.

I have actually found reiki to be pretty passive and can promote peoples karma. Having said that, one of the things that struck me when doing Reiki 2 was that the whole Reiki thing was pretty much energetically and esoterically 3rd density preschool level. I was left wondering what had been left out as I had absolutely no doubt that there was more; but we only got what was passed on. There was, I thought perhaps much which had either been withheld or corrupted by 3rd & 4th D STS.

My experience is that reiki flows into the recipient and the recipient (their body or higher self) decides where it goes to and what effect it has. All the channeller is, is a 'conductor' of this life force (whatever that is). So, actually the recipient is in control of how it is used, and where it goes. The reiki chanel has no say at all, from what I can see.

One rejection from the intended recipient of that Reiki. They didn't tell her why, so one must assume that the rejection was 'for the higher good'.

I think you are falling into a trap with this approach.

This is not an 'approach', it is just information passed on by the teacher that I have speculated on. :) Its her experiences.

I am actually shocked that a Reiki Master would propose such a thing. Well, actually, having discussed with a number of them (being one myself), I know that there is a whole lot of garbage out there that passes as "enlightened teaching" and a lot of what gets taught by Reiki Masters is along that line.

The concept being that reiki works on everyone and does not exclude 'bad people'. In fact, they told us a story of how a supposedly 'bad' person actually did reiki. They weren't very pleased when I 'saw through' that story, though. Because it wasn't the 'message' they were tying to get across. :D Reiki doesn't judge, it just works. That was their message. As far as enemies go, I suppose that all depends on what type of an 'enemy' a person has and how it effects them. Sometimes this person (for no apparent reason) just ceases to be a problem when the situation or the person has had reiki done on them. Strange. I don't know why a person would feel that reiki is not going to work on an enemy. If it doesn't work then that tends to indicate that the wrong thing is being reikied or perhaps for the wrong reason. It would seem that reiki is the wrong response. I don't know....

Like I said, I learned first hand, with pain that it is really, really, REALLY, not a good idea to mess with someone else's karma.

I agree with that. The consequences are disastrous for anyone who messes with karma. But this is not the reiki I know. Of course like most things it has to be used with discernment.

 

[Tigersoap]

I think it's helpful to substitute the word "suffering" in G's statement, to the words "self importance".

Yes, very helpful. The more I practice the work, the more I'm coming to realize that self importance seems to be THE issue.

Hi Chachachick,

I think that the more your self-importance is chipped away, the more you'd be able to make clearer choices on how to react (or not) to a situation, because everything we do involves choices, we're not used to be able see this because we still, most of the time, think that it's the outside that should acknowledge and conform to what we feel and think inside osit.

From my own personla experience, it is quite taking a lot of energy to try to keep your self-importance intact.
The image of a dam cracking up and frantically trying to patch up the cracks comes to my mind.

Although I have to say that I still find hard to balance the conscious suffering vs keeping my own in certain situations because I don't know myself enough yet. All mistakes aren't mistakes at all when you learn from them.

my two cents.

 

[TheSpoon]

I remembered something I once read in one of Colin Wilson's books (The Mysteries? The Occult? The Outsider? - can't remember!) back in the 1980s. He wrote, and I paraphrase; 'The best time to think is when we are doing something utterly mundane.

Yes, that's exactly where I was going with that. I thought you were suggesting that chores were a bad thing, but from the point of view of the Work, they do provide a great opportunity for introspection.

This may sound a silly suggestion, but perhaps the next time you are going to have to cook (and not looking forward to it) you might pretend you are a famous chef demonstrating on the tv, complete with all the flourishing gestures (including the upturned cupped hand, which many male chefs seem to think is an integral part of any explanation); watch yourself doing this, turn it into a game, but most of all, be aware of yourself while you are doing it.

I'd be happy to give that a go, but what's the purpose of the exercise? Am I just trying to do something in a different way from how I normally do it, in order to make it less automatic and easier to self-observe? Interestingly I find I have resistance to performing without an audience since that's a 'mad' thing to do. I've been caught acting without societal restraints in the past (specifically, for example, when I felt like tasting tree leaves 'in the moment') and was teased mercilessly about it. Guess I need to make sure my environment is secure before I try this.

You did not write how old your son is, but if he's a toddler, have you introduced him to books and colouring yet? There is nothing wrong with 'learning games', imo. After all, isn't that how we all learnt, initially?

He's 2.5. I wasn't saying there's anything wrong with 'learning games', just that the mental attention involved means that I don't spontaneously Self Remember. Books yes and not so much colouring (toddlers have NO respect for staying within the lines, sheesh! ;)) but drawing and painting. You can get lining paper (a type of wallpaper) from a DIY shop for about £2 per 30m roll that's really large and thick - paint doesn't soak through. Way cheaper than paper from a stationary shop.

 

[bedower]

[quote author=The Spoon today] I'd be happy to give that a go, but what's the purpose of the exercise? Am I just trying to do something in a different way from how I normally do it, in order to make it less automatic and easier to self-observe? [/quote]

In a word - yes; that was the general idea, that you take a chore you hate and turn it into something other than a chore. (OK, that's several words ;) but you get the drift, yes?)

Interestingly I find I have resistance to performing without an audience since that's a 'mad' thing to do.

Sorry? Why is it a 'mad' thing to do? Do you never find yourself talking to yourself? Never? Besides, what you can do is to sit your son in his high chair (if he has one) and 'perform' for him! He would enjoy it ('What's my crazy dad doing now?' Just kidding! :D) And it's possible that you will enjoy it yourself, imo; killing two birds with one stone, as it were. You are turning your chore into entertainment and interacting with your son on the same level. Imo, this can only be beneficial for both of you.

just that the mental attention involved means that I don't spontaneously Self Remember.

Yup! That's why it's called the Work! You know the old saying; 'Practice makes perfect!'

toddlers have NO respect for staying within the lines, sheesh!

Aw come on! Cut the little guy some slack; he is only two and a half! What were you like at that age? We've found that wax crayons are much better than paints, anyway; much less messy and easier for little fingers to control.

Let us know how your 'premier' goes, yes? :)

 

[Laura]

How do you know you've contacted a persons higher self and not something else or aren't just "talking" with yourself? (What if they don't have a higher self?) And how does a person's higher self answer your request?

One has to stay open to the impressions that are received and remain vigilent. Being 'tuned' as a reiki chanel is supposed to have the effect of taking the lower self out of the equation.

"Supposed"??? Yeah, that's what they tell ya. But as far as I have been able to determine, it's just stuff that Takata made up.

I have been told that reiki works regardless of who or what a person is - it works for 'the higher good'.

I really can't grok how you, after all the years interacting on this forum, can actually write the above and consider it to be in the realm of probability. Oh, sure, anything is possible, but in this case, considering what we know about the New Age Sewage, it's not likely. And my personal experiments with Reiki over a number of years totally contradict that nonsense.

Most people (and things) are connected in some way to a higher source.

Sez who?

How much of them is "present" there and manifests in their higher self may vary.

Sez who?

But, when doing reiki, I assume that it is there, and that it can answer me when I ask permission. That's why we have the 'calling up' process in place. If it wasn't there, we could just discard it and violate free will.

Like I said, I really can't grok how you can even be writing the above nonsense with a straight face.

As most people know, you can reiki most things, but, I am thinking that a rock, or a salad (or any inanimate object), would not have the same higher self as a person. Therefore, I would be asking myself why I am reikiing an inanimate object unless it was for my own good or for selfish reasons. And whether I would be better off reiking something else if there is a problem in my life that I wanted to change.

Ruth, maybe it is time to go and find another forum where they consider such remarks to be reasonable.

How do they answer my request? Psychically and directly and usually with very few words or impressions. How else would you communicate with anybody's or anythings higher self? Seriously, I don't know of any other way. Perhaps its a question of observing results and remaining open to impressions and vigilent.

Go for it. But if you don't have anything more useful to say than the above, please take it elsewhere.

 

[Ruth]

One has to stay open to the impressions that are received and remain vigilent. Being 'tuned' as a reiki chanel is supposed to have the effect of taking the lower self out of the equation.

"Supposed"??? Yeah, that's what they tell ya. But as far as I have been able to determine, it's just stuff that Takata made up.

My experiences of reiki appears to be quite different to yours.

I'm just curious, but given what you've said above, why did you go into reiki at all, even becoming a reiki master if this is the case; or are you saying that it was 'necessary' in order to find out that Takata "made it all up"?

I certainly understand that Takata made up the idea that Usui was a Christian as he was most likely Buddist - this was so the Americans would accept the idea of Reiki more easily. But considering the distortion of the teachings that occur with an oral tradition (a bit like Chinese whispers), it must have been quite difficult to determine what she made up and what she didn't, if you weren't directly receiving her instruction.


Would it be possible for you to elaborate on the depth and extent of what she 'made up', as well as what your current position on reiki is today (i.e. is it dangerous, helpful, useless or a waste of time...ect)? I'm sure that all people who have undergone reiki or are looking to do so in the future would be very pleased to receive this information.

It might be an idea to give it its own thread too. :)

 

[Buddy]

Perhaps a "reiki idiot" could ask a possibly relevant question?
I don't know thing #1 about reiki yet, but I think many of us are aquainted with the damage that's been done whenever concepts such as "higher good", "higher causes" and "higher self" are invoked.

It seems to me the area is simply too much fertile ground for the imagination. If there is no loop of objective feedback, how could one know? And if one cannot come to objectively know, what is the point? It looks like the only thing being demonstrated to the universe is the power of "faith". Unless I'm wrong, of course. :)

 

[theos]

Ruth, it seems as if your approach to Reiki is a sacred cow that needs to be put out to pasture.

FWIW

 

[Renaissance]

I'm just curious, but given what you've said above, why did you go into reiki at all, even becoming a reiki master if this is the case; or are you saying that it was 'necessary' in order to find out that Takata "made it all up"?

It's not clear, at least to me, what you mean. There's quite a bit of New Age doctrine involved in Western Reiki systems; one need not and probably should not follow all the 'higher self', 'highest good' nonsense to find value in Reiki.

I certainly understand that Takata made up the idea that Usui was a Christian as he was most likely Buddist - this was so the Americans would accept the idea of Reiki more easily. But considering the distortion of the teachings that occur with an oral tradition (a bit like Chinese whispers), it must have been quite difficult to determine what she made up and what she didn't, if you weren't directly receiving her instruction.

I wasn't aware that Takata is a main source of the 'highest good' gobbledigook. I had thought there was just an infiltration of the New Age into Reiki. It would make sense that she played a big part in this though; from my experience it is the norm in Reiki teachings. Imo, if you have a decent grasp on New Age cointelpro you can determine what is imaginary pretty easily. Apply that knowledge with what is being imagined.

 

[Snow]

I hate to hijack this thread for my question (I'm very sorry The Spoon ), but I've been reading this thread with some interest and a question came up: is there a difference in Reiki and the laying on hands ?

 

[T.C.]

is there a difference in Reiki and the laying on hands?

Good question actually. First I would have said yes, if by laying on hands you mean in the evangelical sense, because Reiki involves a type of "tuning" of the student by the master. But then I remembered these passages from the transcripts:

Q: Does Reverend R*** know that she is a fraud?
A: No. She believes her.
Q: Is there any psychic activity that occurs when this woman
works on one?
A: Yes.
Q: What is the nature of it?
A: Transference of energy.
Q: What is the source or root of this energy?
A: Intense concentration of psychic thought power.
Q: She is not influenced by any negatives such as the Lizzies
or anything like that?
A: Some, for confusion purposes.
Q: So C*** works with the Lizzie energy?
A: Somewhat.
Q: What is the force or background of R***, G***, J***, et
al.
A: Bogus but some sincere healing does occur as a result of
faith.

and related:

Q: (L) Last week, the remark was made, regarding spirit
release and exorcism, that if it is done properly, by the right
person, that there is no side effects or eventualities that would
bring detrimental conditions to the individuals and location
involved. What was meant by "done correctly?" What is the
correct format or mode for exorcism?
A: Correct manner involves honesty and understanding that
one has complete faith and awareness of the activities
pursued. In other words, when one performs an act which
they proclaim to be having a desired result, and they do not
have faith in their own actions as, in fact, producing the
desired result, then the effort will collapse because of their
lack of faith. Whereas when one has complete faith and
multidensity understanding, their activities are indeed truth and
useful as prescribed and this is the correct way to pursue
them.

 

[ana]

Some time ago I wondered about the use of Reiki:

As I see it, if someone is using the energy then can only help to the physical and energy body of the person, and the only way of contacting to the spirit or real self is using our spirit or real self.

The true health is the result of an active and conscious willing of the self, Then how Can we help others if they do nothing for their own, the one who is really asking is the one who becomes aware of its shortcomings and then look for the remedy wich is knowledge.

Are we really helping others liberating them from the pain of body or energy deficiency, in order to go back to the normalcy of their absurd lives?

 

[Oxajil]

I'm just curious, but given what you've said above, why did you go into reiki at all, even becoming a reiki master if this is the case; or are you saying that it was 'necessary' in order to find out that Takata "made it all up"?

My apologies if I shouldn't answer this question.

I'm reading the Wave atm and am at the part where Laura describes how she found reiki (or reiki found her) and her experiences down the road. It's starts with part 11c. Perhaps you're interested in reading these parts if you haven't yet or forgot.

 

[Mountain Crown]

[quote author=Ruth]I certainly understand that Takata made up the idea that Usui was a Christian as he was most likely Buddist - this was so the Americans would accept the idea of Reiki more easily.[/quote]

This is clearly a manipulation of people who are uninformed about Reiki. A lie which can lead to a straw man result. It is not a "subtle as doves" approach by any means, and says a lot about Takata.

It also is in contrast to Laura's approach, which has always been to share sincerely the truth.

 

[Ruth]

Perhaps a "reiki idiot" could ask a possibly relevant question?
I don't know thing #1 about reiki yet, but I think many of us are aquainted with the damage that's been done whenever concepts such as "higher good", "higher causes" and "higher self" are invoked.

It seems to me the area is simply too much fertile ground for the imagination. If there is no loop of objective feedback, how could one know? And if one cannot come to objectively know, what is the point? It looks like the only thing being demonstrated to the universe is the power of "faith". Unless I'm wrong, of course. :)

Speaking of concepts, this is most likely a problem for ALL chanelled infromation! Therefore, it would probably be best if a person was to attempt to find the least corrupted source (which we should all be trying to do and encouraging others to do as a matter of course), rather than assuming that everything chanelled on a certain subject is or has been corrupted beyond helpfullness as this would most likely depend on the source anyway. The difficult task is to look for the most uncorrupted source there is, and not just for information or a source that one 'likes'.... or approves of whatever that is and whereever it comes from.

Speaking of chanelled infromation, it seems odd some people are 'bagging' reiki, but not Gurdjieff. Where did he get his information, if it wasn't passed on to him and ultimately chanelled information anyway? Does this mean he is a 'purer' source and is less corrupted? Does this mean that there aren't versions of his teachings which haven't been corrupted?

I too would like to appologise to The Spoon for the thread 'hyjack'. Funny how these things happen and I often wonder why.