PDA

View Full Version : Do you consider Reiki a religion?



dreamosis
6th July 2010, 03:46 AM
Do you consider Reiki a religion?

If so, why? If not, why?

What defines a religion?

Alienor
6th July 2010, 07:26 AM
What do you mean, when you write "Reiki"?

I usually just mean a kind of energy and then asking is Reiki a religion would be like asking is "Heat" or is "Electricity" a religion.

Tom
6th July 2010, 08:51 AM
Usui Reiki has structure to it, including both beliefs and values. It isn't just the energy, it is an intelligent energy that can be guided or allowed to go on its own direction. Still, I wouldn't call it a religion. If you have a religion and use reiki it can help to increase the faith you already have, whatever it may be.

ButterflyWoman
6th July 2010, 09:25 AM
The best definition I've seen for "religion" is this:


A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Reiki doesn't have any creation myths (as far as I'm aware), nor does it rely on any deity or deity-forms, unless you consider sentient energy to be a deity (I don't, because it lacks the character and qualities typically ascribed to a deity).

However, the whole "what is religion" is pretty much this:[attachment=0:11ee24dm]canofworms500w.jpg[/attachment:11ee24dm]

Sinera
6th July 2010, 01:52 PM
Why Religion?

Reiki is an alternative medicine method which utilises energy healing (distance or hands-on). It is not connected officially to any exoteric religion. Organised Religion for me is pure exotericism. Reiki is for me esoteric knowledge and practice.

There are of course "oriental" influences and elements of eastern spiritual systems. E.g. Reiki is defined by using (as the name already implies) "Ki", which is a kind of universal life energy, comparable to the yogic Prana. Reiki also uses the Chakra stimulation like in Yogic practice or Chinese medicine - or in R. Bruce's system. :wink:

ButterflyWoman
6th July 2010, 03:35 PM
After more thought, I think I would consider Reiki to be a healing paradigm or healing modality. It doesn't have the complete worldview that I (and most other people, I suppose) associate with a religion.

dreamosis
6th July 2010, 04:55 PM
What do you mean, when you write "Reiki"?


When I use the word, I usually have in my mind the most straightforward English translation, which to me is: "spiritual energy." My understanding of "spiritual" as a modifier of "energy" is that it's intended to describe the most essential kind of energy. I regard Reiki differently than I do heat or electricity, but maybe that's misguided. Electricity is an energy and Reiki is an energy, and if you conceive of Reiki as the source of all energies, then electricity is composed of Reiki -- but Reiki, then, is something more fundamental.

Out of training, I suppose, I approach Reiki with respect, whereas I rarely express respect or gratitude when I switch on a lamp. Maybe, though, this is misguided...


It isn't just the energy, it is an intelligent energy that can be guided or allowed to go on its own direction.

...And this is how Reiki is usually considered to be more fundamental: it's intelligent. What that means, I don't know entirely. And I practice Reiki. From my point of view, if I assume the existence of the Divine, and that the Divine is an intelligent force, and that the Divine is omnipresent, then Reiki must be a force of divine intelligence. By the same reasoning, electricity must be a force of divine intelligence too -- but experimentation would probably show exposure to electricity to be less effective in terms of healing than Reiki... Why? My best intuitive guess is that it's because electricity generally follows macroscopic, cause-and-effect laws of physics, whereas Reiki operates on a more non-deterministic basis, influencing parts of the energy body and physical body that are imbalanced without necessarily having to travel through other parts of it. If that's true, I don't know whether that proves its inherent intelligence, though.

Reiki is said to "go to the source of imbalance" and in that sense is called intelligent. If the nature of all being is balance, and Reiki is the essence of being, its effect will be balancing. From a linear perspective, Reiki's going to the imbalance may look like it knows what it's doing, that it's intelligent; but that may be an illusion based on the non-linear nature of the energy. Or not.

In either case, if you accept the premise of an all-present, sentient force, then you come back to the necessity of Reiki being sentient.


Usui Reiki has structure to it, including both beliefs and values.

The practice of Reiki has at least two beliefs: (1) There's a source substance called Reiki which permeates, and supports, all existence. (2) It's possible to consciously direct this substance.

You could say the Reiki tradition has at least five values in the form of the Reiki principles. However, no line of the tradition that I know of teaches that these values are compulsory or even necessary to use Reiki. The other most common value the Reiki tradition has is Fair and Equal Exchange.


A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

The practice of Reiki might be said to have at least one belief concerning the cause and nature of the universe, although none regarding its purpose. Reiki certainly has rituals, but whether they could be said to be devotional is up for debate. The tradition has suggested values, but no obligatory moral code.



Reiki doesn't have any creation myths (as far as I'm aware), nor does it rely on any deity or deity-forms, unless you consider sentient energy to be a deity (I don't, because it lacks the character and qualities typically ascribed to a deity).

No, the Reiki tradition has origination myth per se, but it does have a name for and a belief in the cause and nature of all being. Of course, a name is just a name. And the belief is useless without practice and experience. The practice of Reiki by itself doesn't rely on deity at all; although practitioners associate Reiki with a variety of deities. In that sense, you might say the practice is trans-religious.



Reiki is an alternative medicine method which utilises energy healing (distance or hands-on). It is not connected officially to any exoteric religion. Organised Religion for me is pure exotericism. Reiki is for me esoteric knowledge and practice.

Looking at the roots of Reiki, i.e. at Mikao Usui, I'm unsure that he practiced it or taught it only as an alternative medicine modality. He referred to it broadly as "Reiho," or the Spiritual Method. It seems like the practice of Reiki, over time, has gotten pigeonholed into a healing modality, whereas originally that was anciliary to and merely a possible side-effect of its practice. Nonetheless, it's clear that it was used too as alternative medicine.

Reiki is superficially connected to Buddhism (a Japanese rendering of it based on a Chinese rendering of it based on its origin in India), but worship is not an element of it. And even Buddhism, in some of its forms, is a sort of "trans-religion." Reiki is less exoteric and more esoteric in that it relies on personal practice and experience in preference to set ritual forms.



Reiki also uses the Chakra stimulation like in Yogic practice or Chinese medicine

Modern branches of Reiki practice use chakra stimulation, but there isn't any indication that this was a part of the original practice. But I'm getting unduly technical. Japanese-based energywork systems (out of which Reiki arose) of course emphasize stimulating energy centers, but if you look at those systems -- old and new -- you see that they focus on different centers than Yogis. But again, I'm just getting technical.


After more thought, I think I would consider Reiki to be a healing paradigm or healing modality. It doesn't have the complete worldview that I (and most other people, I suppose) associate with a religion.

You're right, the worldview within the Reiki tradition isn't complete. It's very simple, doesn't have a mythos, or even a cosmology. I think a lot of the Reiki variants have been attempts to wed Reiki practice to fuller worldviews.

From my point of view, it isn't just a healing paradigm or modality, though. Meditation on Reiki is a big part of the practice.

WASD
7th July 2010, 12:40 PM
For me a religion is some kind of organization.

Tutor
7th July 2010, 02:33 PM
For me a religion is some kind of organization.

yes, as organized thought, as in "every day this person exercises religiously", so it is regimen and routine, dogma and doctrine, that define a religious movement.

when freed, one may spiritually be, loosed from self-restraints of regimen and routine, dogma and doctrine, exploitive of that which spoken and/or written was given to free one to/in/of life; not to do as they will, for it was their will which formed regimen and routine, dogma and doctrine, but rather to allow the will of the day to continue forming/informing them as they freely see it to be in it's arrival.

my intent, as far as reiki goes, is to freely let it be just as my intent is freed to be in the practice set forth toward growth availed from reiki through myself given freely.

just as the physical heart feeds itself first with oxygenated blood supply and then replenishes the brain and bodily functions, so must a hearted self within freely accept healing that from this sustained hearted self the body of other is as well assured of healing.

confusingly said perhaps, but within the body of there are multitudes of voices that would cry out to the heart if said heart failed to send replenished supply, it having ignored itself unto starvation for all else, and thusly kicked the bucket over and splilling life's sustenance.

greek saying, " a shoeless person cannot give away shoes".

many a religious folk remain shoeless, yet religiously give shoes away. therefore such shoes given are not of life (real), but rather given toward death (unreal) of that very religion, as it forgetfully does not itself feed upon what it is preaching to others.

ergo, i suggest that it is not wise to box up reiki as a religion.

tim

dreamosis
7th July 2010, 05:04 PM
For me a religion is some kind of organization.

Generally it is. I wonder this, though: Does a religion necessitate a social organization, or is that we think of religions as organizations because religions have been sustained through them?



greek saying, " a shoeless person cannot give away shoes".


That's a great saying.



i suggest that it is not wise to box up reiki as a religion.


I agree. I'm confused by those who want to make it one.

On a broader note, though, does a religion have to be "boxed"? Only members of a faith conspiring together, in the innocent sense or the malicious sense, can put a box around a collection of stories, texts, symbols, and practices.

"Religion" in its root meaning is something like "a link to the past," which I find beautiful.

I think Catholicism, earnestly practiced with a free heart (as you suggest), could lead to transcendence as easily as the practice of Reiki.

Also, is there such a thing as "too free" in terms of a tradition? Does a tradition lose its value to guide the lower self to spirit if it maintains no boundaries whatsover?

As Reiki is being propagated, it's being added to, subtracted from, crossed with other traditions...

All roads lead to home, but aren't some routes circuitous and confusing?

I don't at all think Reiki practitioners should socially organize, but I do see value in preserving a simple, honest, original-as-possible variant of the tradition to pass on to future seekers. You must, of course, make your own path. The value, to me, of esoteric traditions is that they can (sort of) reliably show new seekers how to start making one's own way. A tradition, if it's worth anything, will -- metaphorically speaking -- stop a person from wandering in circles in the forest by giving them a rough map.

No tradition can give a person a compass, or eyes to see where the sun is in the sky -- that comes from the self. The "map" is printed in the individual spirit, too...the maps of esoteric tradition are really maps to your personal map, perhaps.

CFTraveler
7th July 2010, 05:53 PM
One comment and my opinion:

For me a religion is some kind of organization. I would say that a religion is some kind of organization, but not all organizations are religion. Reiki (or the discipline of Reiki) has been organized/instituted, and it can be indeed practiced as a religion, like other disciplines (I have a couple of disciplines in mind that started out as theories on reality and are being practiced as religion, but that's another post.) but the question is, do you think it's practiced as a religion?

Sinera
7th July 2010, 06:44 PM
When thinking about what is "religious" or rather "spiritual practice" I find it helpful to first broadly make the distinction between EXO-tericism and ESO-tericism.

EXO-tericism mainly is
- socially organised religion and religion as official "belief" or "faith" in general
- socially dictated dogma (top-down orientation)
- power structures, social manipulation (misuse of power)
- fanatism and intolerance to other belief systems
- mostly literal interpretation of scriptures / fundamentalism
- liturgy and rituals deprived of their (original) meaning
- churches , sects, similar organisations

ESO-tericism mainly is
- occult ("esoteric science") techniques and teachings, e.g. Astral Projection
- Eastern "folk" techniques, some nowadays also "Westernised" in lighter versions, such as like Yoga and Meditation
- a vast economic market which has the downside of diluted content (e.g. TV mediumship, newspaper horoscopes, etc)
- focus on person(al development) instead of society (manipulation) - and with that it is also a bottom-up (soul/person development) orientation as opposed to e.g. church "state" dogma for societies
- energy healing of different kinds (old or modern) and many other kinds of "alternative medicine", e.g. Chinese acupuncture (now it's effectiveness ackknowledged even by Western science which makes it less esoteric now)
- some kinds of 'spiritualism' (such as mediumship) also 'parapsychological' topics with "roots in the astral" (clairvoyance, telepathy, etc)
- "spirituality" (a term churches like to us a lot too, but to me spirituality is individualistic and thus belongs to esotericism)
- mysticism (which also forms the esoteric part of the Western monotheism, such as Kaballah , Sufism , Gnosticism or Neo-Platinism)
- mostly Eastern philosophies, cosmologies and "religions" (although they also do have their exoteric part, but much less than the Western religions)

It must be said, that of course there are no clear-cut boundaries, but it helps as a general overview and division.
Reiki therefore clearly belongs to the ESO-teric side. Religion is for me mainly EXO-tericism.

dreamosis
7th July 2010, 07:41 PM
Religion is for me mainly EXO-tericism.

Is religion inherently exoteric, though? Or has it just happened that some spiritual ideas have been hijacked by repressive social organizations? No doubt some spiritual misinformation or disinformation has informed, or contributed to, repressive social movements, but why blame religion for what people do with it?

Your list of what exotericism is has more to do with power relationships between humans than with the content of any religious tradition.


...the question is, do you think it's practiced as a religion?

I think that, unfortunately, Reiki is mostly practiced as a commercial healing modality. Also, I think it could use some of the "coherence" of religion; but aside from a few cultish groups, no, I don't think it's being practiced as a religion.

CFTraveler
7th July 2010, 08:08 PM
When thinking about what is "religious" or rather "spiritual practice" I find it helpful to first broadly make the distinction between EXO-tericism and ESO-tericism.

EXO-tericism mainly is
- socially organised religion and religion as official "belief" or "faith" in general
- socially dictated dogma (top-down orientation)
- power structures, social manipulation (misuse of power)
- fanatism and intolerance to other belief systems
- mostly literal interpretation of scriptures / fundamentalism
- liturgy and rituals deprived of their (original) meaning
- churches , sects, similar organisations

ESO-tericism mainly is
- occult ("esoteric science") techniques and teachings, e.g. Astral Projection
- Eastern "folk" techniques, some nowadays also "Westernised" in lighter versions, such as like Yoga and Meditation
- a vast economic market which has the downside of diluted content (e.g. TV mediumship, newspaper horoscopes, etc)
- focus on person(al development) instead of society (manipulation) - and with that it is also a bottom-up (soul/person development) orientation as opposed to e.g. church "state" dogma for societies
- energy healing of different kinds (old or modern) and many other kinds of "alternative medicine", e.g. Chinese acupuncture (now it's effectiveness ackknowledged even by Western science which makes it less esoteric now)
- some kinds of 'spiritualism' (such as mediumship) also 'parapsychological' topics with "roots in the astral" (clairvoyance, telepathy, etc)
- "spirituality" (a term churches like to us a lot too, but to me spirituality is individualistic and thus belongs to esotericism)
- mysticism (which also forms the esoteric part of the Western monotheism, such as Kaballah , Sufism , Gnosticism or Neo-Platinism)
- mostly Eastern philosophies, cosmologies and "religions" (although they also do have their exoteric part, but much less than the Western religions)

It must be said, that of course there are no clear-cut boundaries, but it helps as a general overview and division.
Reiki therefore clearly belongs to the ESO-teric side. Religion is for me mainly EXO-tericism. I believe this is true on first glance, however, it's my observation that many esoteric practices have been turned into religious practices, and have been exo-tericized.
Which makes these things a lot more individual, it seems to me.

Sinera
7th July 2010, 09:26 PM
it's my observation that many esoteric practices have been turned into religious practices, and have been exo-tericized.
Which makes these things a lot more individual, it seems to me.
That's right. It is said by many writers in the field of occultism or mysticism (and even astral projection) that Esoteric knowledge is the origin of Exoteric dogma/cult/religion, it's never vice versa.

However, the true meanings behind some of the practices and information is "hidden" for the masses in exoteric religion. I would not go so far to promote the notion of "keeping the masses dumb and manipulable" - but something similar it is. Exoteric world-view is better for mass manipulation / social control. It is also less complicated and more digestible for "the masses". But that is not the only reason of course.

To cite one famous out-of-body explorer from one of his works who views it in a similar way:

„The techniques of gaining entrance to Otherwhere were once part of every religious tradition. This tradition has been lost to Christianity since the time of the Inquisition. People don't need a church if they can answer the eternal questions for themselves, through personal journeys into Otherwhere. Suche practices threatened the church's power structure and were repressed. Secret societies carried on the tradition, but had to disguise it in symbolism to avoid detection by the Church. Over centuries, the true meanings and practices behind these symbolic systems were lost, leaving nothing but empty ritual.“
- K. Leland

I think that this "secrecy" is pretty twofolded: On the one hand, esotericists/mystics were heretics for the church, many were persecuted in the middle ages.On the other hand, many occultists and esoteric circles state that they need and want to keep their secrets. (Power is again also an issue, although wielded differently here).

„ It was necessary to keep the information secret for two reasons:
1. The general public were insufficiently developed to be trusted with the power that esoteric knowledge conferred.
2. Anyone whose beliefs differed from the predominant theological system of the time was invariably subjected to persecution, torture and/or death.“
- L. Bladon

Esoteric world view is of course profoundly different from exoteric world view, it could not be further apart. For me it is still best represented in the anthrophomorphic GOD-image of the exotericists versus the esoteric "All-That-Is" notion.

„The spiritual externalist waits for reunification with a Creator after death, while the internalist feels part of a Oneness each day.“
- M. Newton

Just an imagined example: Can you fancy a priest in the culprit giving a speech (er ... sermon ) about out-of-body experience or recommending astral projection to his congregation, convince them to make them experience for themselves that they are spiritual beings? Make spirituality an "individual experience" for them in the truest sense?

No, of course not. That would be a real exoterization of esotericism, because that is what spiritual individual experience is. But a priest is supposed to be the intermediary between the Transcendent / God or whatever and his congregation, that is what they do for centuries, keeping the people away from "real" spiritual experience and replacing it with dogma.

They would never recommend trying individual experience. The opposite is the case: those priests speak in diatribes against the bad "occultists", "magicians" or "esoteric sects" or whatever and relegate AP and similar "sinful" things to the realm of fairy tales.
Would he promote a healing method like Reiki? No, not either. Maybe he would recommend prayer for healing (which is not quite the same). :wink:

CFTraveler
7th July 2010, 09:35 PM
Funny, I know we've discussed this as how christianity has become what it has become (for good or for bad, it's not the issue) but when I said what I said I was thinking about a more esoteric and relatively recent movement, but I suppose it all seems to move the same way. Once you organize anything, it turns into a religion, if given enough time. Unless something fundamental changes in us I don't see anything else happening.

ps. to avoid too much controversy I won't name the movement here, but we can talk about this in pms if you're that curious.

dreamosis
7th July 2010, 09:49 PM
EXO-tericism mainly is
- socially organised religion and religion as official "belief" or "faith" in general
- socially dictated dogma (top-down orientation)
- power structures, social manipulation (misuse of power)
- fanatism and intolerance to other belief systems
- mostly literal interpretation of scriptures / fundamentalism
- liturgy and rituals deprived of their (original) meaning
- churches , sects, similar organisations

I know what you're saying here and I didn't mean to ignore the good point you make. The major global religions are practiced superficially, usually requiring only lipservice to a creed, are top-down controlled, and used for political ends (ex.: the Mormon church in California over Prop 8). There's a lot of intolerance, fundamentalism, empty ritual taking place and most of it is perpetrated by adherents to the major global religions; only a minority of that is coming from introspecting seekers.

The point I was trying to make, in response to yours, was that if you look at political groups instead of religious groups, you see the same thing. American politicians and many citizens only pay lipservice to the creeds of our founding documents, we're a democracy but we're very top-down controlled, the system is used to make certain men rich and for imposing narrow viewpoints. Among the two major parties there's very little tolerance, there's a lot of fundamentalism (partisanism), and the "rituals" -- like the observance of Indepedence Day -- are empty...

If you take, say, the New Testament just in terms of metaphor, it's a good metaphor. Spiritually it has a lot to offer and to teach you. Systems like Catholicism may be full of members that chant numbly twice per year, but the system itself doesn't preclude the possibility of transcendence through prayer. It has a tradition of contemplative prayer that is practically indistinguishable from the Buddhist Vipassana or Reiki's Gassho Meiso.

It's very true that the Catholic church doesn't, as a whole, actively encourage its members to engage in contemplative prayer. And that's too bad. However, if you examine any major religion, you'll find esoteric practices right in the open. They aren't hidden or withheld. I mean, I was personally brought up in the Mormon church and was told astral projection was dangerous and would expose me to the Devil; but, on the other hand, I was encouraged to participate in faith healing, to listen to the spirit, and to seek visions and the power of prophecy. True, those practices were limited by the beliefs and prejudices of the group.

Mainstream religion has somewhat successfully evolved. The Christian bible teaches that women should always have their heads covered and never speak in church and that's been discarded. And some churches have female priests. I won't put myself in the position of defending mainstream religious groups, though, because they're still stifling... But, from my perspective, it's really the groupmind and not what's written in the texts or suggested is practiced that's the problem.

ButterflyWoman
8th July 2010, 04:59 AM
Once you organize anything, it turns into a religion, if given enough time.
Including many things that don't look like "religion" on the surface (politics, for example). It turns into An Institution(tm) with devoted followers and so on, and grows until it's nearly unrecognisable from the original thing that it was.


Unless something fundamental changes in us I don't see anything else happening.
Agreed.

Tutor
8th July 2010, 05:02 AM
this thread has takenn a wonderful direction. I agree CFT, as far as is human nature both become the same thing simply because of agendas set forth that are both extraneous and exploitive.

that's not to say that 'extraneous and exploitive' are negative words, it is just what it just is.

but, to dreamosis, i do not see that thread reaching back to origins of any religion, or even the line of history is in any way detrimental toward a positive outcome, it again, is just what it just is.

being our human nature to do so.

'religion' is not a negative nor a positive, even as religious history is easily scrutinized for negatives and positives. but, it is the human nature that is fallible, and therefore as extending from human nature no religion, regardless of origin, can help but follow in that nature.

underlying all human nature that would from form religious thought, is spiritual content as origin, as carried through, as delivered.

just as is our human nature, though fallible, completely redeemable.

perhaps religion may be seen as the vehicle which through time collects lots of exterior accumulations and darkly tinted windows, whereas the passengers within the vehicle become unseen, masked behind the facade of time's passing.

the passengers within are the original message, the spiritual body, that having begun the journey, are carried forth, and finally finish the journey. though the vehicle which brought them through is unrecognizable, the passengers are one and the same, human all the way through from beginning to end.

so, box or vehicle, call it what you will, such as religion is encapsulates our best intent, being spiritual in origin, but however, through the journey goes from horse drawn buggy to space shuttle.

one might look at history and ask, imagine where science would now be if religion had just stayed out of it with all the heresy accusations, purgations and executions. however, nothing comes to be without the antagonistic principle that spurs the vehicle forward.

which is the antagonist, religion or science? well that has ever depended on which side of it mankind has 'fallen' within. almost to say, that they both served as dual morphing antagonists (world's insatiable desires and god's statements through man), while the spiritual protagonist within the vehicle solidly remained unchanged and deliverably innocent, to perfectly step out of the box/vehicle in due time.

i like that analogy, because it rests truth within each and everyone as untouched, unchanged, ever innocent; while as well, it releases our human fallibility as that which we step out all the time when we've arrived to destinations far reaching.

how can we turn our thoughts away from this nature all around and expressive of us, seeing nature as the vehicle? so we might see the inverse of this extraneous and exploitive nature to be very truth within our selves, the original Image unscathed from impurities?

how/why does a three dimensional star of david, merkaba, hold a fourth dimensional truth within it's vehicular grasp? the answer to this is the same answer for asking, why is this man on horseback, on a chariot, a wagon, in a carriage, in a car, a boat, in a plane, any craft? to take a journey through nature's dimensional distances, they effects of causal time; or perhaps time is the effect of nature's causal dimensional distances. again the dual antagonistic modality...

religion is a craft. if spirituality is a practiced craft, then surely it is yet a religion, though it may be dwelling upon the threshold of letting go and stepping out of said craft.

the line crossed and crossable, is either to be within as that truth yet within it's vehicle; or is from the within stepped across and out of that vehicle being freed from practice/craft, such that truth within has become truth living in the life; of course the life being that which invites us outward of the security of within as our true expression of being in the world.

it is damn near impossible to convey with thoughted words, but trying to express it never hurt anyone.

being you is what is yours to be, and from that being do what is only yours to do. to say, that truth within each is the same as that truth within everyone as a whole, a body is a body is a body.

because it is for each to be equally free to express their true body of (fullness) being; and it is for all as each to give way (share) such that each is equally free to express humanity's true being as a whole body of (fullness) being.

the fullness therefore requires the body of, the box or vehicle with which to journey from within.

that fullness is the expression of truth, or as seen as the box or vehicle it is the body of being. either way seen, is neither negative nor positive, but scrutinized by any one the vehicle is easily seen as the proverbial battle wagon, the armored tank bearing down on it's arrival through time.

but this crucible is holy, it is sacred beyond measure merely for that which is held within it as pure and unchanged. it is one's holy grail, the very cup from which, the contents would set one free, for the contents cannot be but any 'you' in it, the spirited being of origin, carried through and delivered on time as per the due date of TRUTH's arrival.

tim

dreamosis
8th July 2010, 05:27 PM
Well put, Tim.

I've been flustered lately by anti-religious attitudes. I once participated in them, but I've become a lot more sensitive to it since (as I've mentioned a lot) a good friend of mine became a militant atheist. Hearing his views now I notice a lot of hasty generalization, the tendency to blame religion for all the world's ills. And in doing so he forgets that "religion" is made up of all kinds of people.

My parents raised me Mormon and they were worried for many years after I broke from it. Now, though, it's different. On Sunday I had a completely non-violent conversation with my mom about my spiritual path and there was mutual respect. She's seen over the years, that despite breaking from her group, I strive to be a good man, to seek truth, and to be accepting. Contrariwise, my friend has a terrible relationship with his mother because he deems her "irrational." As he treats her with ridicule for her beliefs, he invites her to be ever more fundamentalist.

Group spirituality tends to blind people and breed prejudice toward outgroups, no doubt. As accepting as my parents are now, I know that they'd prefer I call on God as a Melchizedech priest as opposed to calling on spiritual energy as a Reiki practitioner. When I was first practicing Reiki, my mother likened it to witchcraft. Over time she's seen the fruits of it, though, and she sees that whatever it is the effect has been harmonzing to my life. She's stuck in names, but I've stopped trying to "cure" her of that. I see that the effect of Mormonism is harmonizing in her life too. She's a kindhearted, intuitive, and honest woman.

Religion, like you said Tim, is neither negative nor positive. I wouldn't even be so demaning as to say that "some people need it because they're less spiritually evolved." Our choice of path, as I see it, has a lot to do with temperant and less to do with how old or advanced we are as spirits.

I often think that I could progress spiritually in an organized religion as well as I could outside of one. The only trouble is I couldn't honestly swear to the creeds unless I thought of them as metaphorical as I was swearing. And, being the type of person I am, I don't think I could do that unless I communicated to the priest, or whomever, that that's where I was coming from.

Tutor
8th July 2010, 06:02 PM
dreamosis,

beautifully said... :lol:

if it is not you then what has it to do with you, but what you'd renenter into while knowing better?

so, we unlearn and understand more and more of our natures that feel to look back in non-acceptance of our present lot.

love does not require one to like everything, and dislike does not require one to love everything.

yet, love is everything, or love parted is nothing at all.

human nature is a catch 22, literally and interpretively.

certainly what is fore-given is also within certainty forgiven.

no doubt about it,

tim

Sinera
8th July 2010, 07:08 PM
EXO-tericism mainly is
- socially organised religion and religion as official "belief" or "faith" in general
- socially dictated dogma (top-down orientation)
- power structures, social manipulation (misuse of power)
- fanatism and intolerance to other belief systems
- mostly literal interpretation of scriptures / fundamentalism
- liturgy and rituals deprived of their (original) meaning
- churches , sects, similar organisations
If you take, say, the New Testament just in terms of metaphor, it's a good metaphor. Spiritually it has a lot to offer and to teach you.
I agree, the NT is. But for me the metaphorical interpretation is (in this context) more or less synonymous to esoteric interpretation of scriptures versus misuse by more exoteric (fundamentalist or - in a milder form - orthodox) views. It is a matter of understanding and interpreting the texts.
One example: Jesus says to seek "the kingdom within" (which Theosophists termed 'the father in secret'), which is more or less purely esoterical.



Systems like Catholicism may be full of members that chant numbly twice per year, but the system itself doesn't preclude the possibility of transcendence through prayer. It has a tradition of contemplative prayer that is practically indistinguishable from the Buddhist Vipassana or Reiki's Gassho Meiso.
It's very true that the Catholic church doesn't, as a whole, actively encourage its members to engage in contemplative prayer. And that's too bad. However, if you examine any major religion, you'll find esoteric practices right in the open. They aren't hidden or withheld.
That's right. But I had included it on my list on ESO-tericism (not quoted here) under "Mysticism". Mysticism is more or less the esoteric part of the "official" religions - and thus largely ignored by the general public.
Willigis Jäger (mystic, benedictine monk and zen master buddhist all in one) is a proficient writer on the subject of Contemplation, the esoteric Christian method. (If you're interested, there is even an English translation available e.g. on Amazon "Contemplation: A Christian Path (1994") - I haven't read that one but another of him which was really good).



Mainstream religion has somewhat successfully evolved. The Christian bible teaches that women should always have their heads covered and never speak in church and that's been discarded.
In some congregations and sects I suppose it is not. And just take a look at great parts of the Islamic world ...
to put it mildly: still some work to do. :wink:

dreamosis
8th July 2010, 08:43 PM
And just take a look at great parts of the Islamic world ... to put it mildly: still some work to do.

I'm glad you brought this up. There are religious organizations which maintain, what I feel is, damaging prejudice. Mormonism -- or, for that matter, most mainstream Christianity -- forbids women to be priests. For the most part, the situation seems leftover from old cultural norms, since Christian texts aren't explicit about the reason why women can't be priests. Ask any church's hierarchy about this and you will likely get a fuzzy answer.

The Islamic Koran specifically asks its devout to slay idolaters, "wherever you find them," with whom you have no special agreement. To be fair, the verses also ask Muslims to house idolaters, persuading them to repent. Here's the famous "Verse of the Sword":


Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the jizya (poor-due), then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. - Qu’ran, 9:5

Usually it's easier to see officiated prejudice in smaller cults, or in extremist sects with literal takes on text, but not always. No matter how you interpret or apologize for the Verse of the Sword, you can't deny the fact that it asks Muslims to kill -- just as you can't deny the fact that the Old Testament asked adulterers to be killed and says in no uncertain terms that homosexuality is an "abomination."

Yet, again, this is only words on paper. No Christian individual is obligated to the Leviticus teachings than any individual Muslim is obligated to the Verse of the Sword. Of course, it's difficult not to see that Fundamentalist Muslims cite the Verse of the Sword and that Fundamentalist, gay-hating Christians cite Leviticus. It's largely because of fundamentalism that we've inherited such an all-or-nothing attitude toward religion; why we tend to think of the Christian bible as a whole that must be accepted as a whole, when in fact it was always a compilation of different groups separated by geography and culture.

Also, there is spiritual misinformation and disinformation out there. The Reiki community isn't free from it. I would define misinformation as information that's been distorted in the communication process. Disinformation is purposely seeding lies.

An example of disinformation in the Reiki community is the lie that Mikao Usui was a Christian. There isn't any evidence he was. I've personally come to the conclusion that it was a lie spread with a well-meaning intent (beginning with Hawayo Takata?), but it's also a lie that has caused a lot of confusion. Of course, the practice of Reiki is what matters, not whether Usui was a member of a Christian church or a Buddhist church, but I still think it's unfortunate that people have been drawn to the Reiki path under false pretenses.

What exactly I consider to be spiritual disinformation is a touchy subject. I'll be brave and say that I think and feel the concept of External Judgment by Deity is almost complete garbage. I say "almost" because if you squint and looks sideways at the concept, then you can see how it connects to the neutral concept of the law of attraction and such. Yet, to pretend that "what you put out, you get back" is the same as Yahweh either letting souls into heaven or condemning them to ever-lasting fiery torture, is doublethink.

Tutor
9th July 2010, 01:16 PM
In some congregations and sects I suppose it is not. And just take a look at great parts of the Islamic world...

precisely!

touches my heart to see that written. :wink:

one cannot judge a book by it's cover, and pretty much most western peoples have only seen the mediated 'cover' which with 'purpose' has shown the islamic world in it's worst light.

what 'people of religion' do not possess among themselves a 'worst light' that can be taken as their definitive presence in our global environ?

my personal experience with islamic peoples touched me deeply, even as i was in uniform serving the united states. their graciousness, openness, even those armed guard who often stood watch while we slept in safety and joyfully played volley ball with us by day. not one word could we exchange in common understanding, but the common human language of body and soul was one of shared admiration.

inspired by this, when getting back home i took it upon myself to read and study the quran, not for religious sake, but for greater understanding of the underlying truth of it's written word. and i found no quarrels with it, realizing that just as is and has been the christian faith, extreme views erupt from 'out of context' literal interpretations that have sought no deeper than the human craving for personal power.

and that is a commonality shared through and through in our human nature, which none of us may deny ourselves of having defaulted to.

two cents

tim

dreamosis
9th July 2010, 04:17 PM
To play the devil's advocate, though, I think there is something very different about the story of Islam versus the story of Christianity. Focusing on the story of both religions may be only looking skin-deep, but I'm not sure in this case.

Certainly there are many compassionate Muslims, but consider the differences in the stories of Mohommed versus the stories of Jesus. What we know from the bible about the life of Jesus is that he broke away from religious tradition, attracted followers, traveled around, healed people, preached, caught the attention of the Jewish hierarchy and was executed for heresy (upon which he was resurrected and encouraged his closest followers to spread his message). What we know from the Koran and Hadith about the life of Mohommed is that he broke away from religious tradition, attracted followers, set himself up as a theocratic ruler, led several battles against pagans, supposedly personally beheaded hundreds of men in one day, had numerous concubines, and established a church.

Jesus said he "came with a sword," but in context it's clear he was being metaphorical. Mohommed, supposedly, literally killed lots of people or ordered lots of people to be killed.

Now I'm not saying Islam is inherently violent. That would be nonsense. But the story of the two heroes can't be compared without ignoring many of Mohommed's deeds.

...Besides being inclined toward a mystical path, one reason I could never return to my birth religion (Mormonism) is because of what I've learned about its founders. This may be me judging the messenger instead of the message. Yet I've found it useful to only listen to men whose words are consistent and whose actions more or less match their words.

To be sure, there is contradiction in Christianity with Jesus, but as far as Mohommed is concerned, I see a lot of it. So much, that to discard the violence of his life in favor of his peaceful messages, seems like willful ignorance.

Tutor
10th July 2010, 03:07 PM
So much, that to discard the violence of his life in favor of his peaceful messages, seems like willful ignorance.

is this not what we all have done and do, expecting understanding and forgiveness for it, when push comes to shove in our relational life?

i see no arguments in the history of things. people are people, we are all human.

who cannot as a whole human race justify history, as it is portrayed in so many skews to so many peoples?

but, we may, any of us, justify people, from one human being to another, in kind, now.

is what i am saying.


tim

dreamosis
10th July 2010, 03:57 PM
True, forgiveness does mean that you accept a person, or group, as they are now without waiting for them to prove themselves to be worthy or trustworthy. Doing this doesn't preclude the possibility of further manipulation or aggression on the part of the person you've decided to trust, but it is a "more spiritual" poise than paranoia.

Maybe the wisest poise is an extension of trust while being fully open about your doubts and fears. On relationship level this would look like, "I love you, I want to be with you, to fully trust in you again, but I'm full of doubts. I'll push those doubts away as best as I can and try not to prejudge you." On a national level it might look like: "We're both human, we're brothers and sisters; we want to live in peace with you and feel safe that you won't attack us. We're full of doubts, but we'll try to push those aside and interact with you as allies."

Trust can be transformative. As I'm able to think like an evil person I can also see trust as an opportunity for exploitation. That's where honest dialogue, though, has to enter the picture. In a relationship, if you can't completely and honestly tell the other person what all of your worries are, then you've left an opening for future hurt. Most people don't like to admit to all their worries because they don't want to sound stupid or weak or paranoid; but if you admit to all of them, they don't have as much power over you.

ButterflyWoman
11th July 2010, 07:47 AM
True, forgiveness does mean that you accept a person, or group, as they are now without waiting for them to prove themselves to be worthy or trustworthy.
I wouldn't call that "forgiveness". I'd call that tolerance or acceptance or trust. Forgiveness implies that there is something to forgive, and it's really a personal thing, having little or nothing to do with the forgiven (i.e., the change wrought by forgiveness is always in you, and may not affect the "forgiven" at all).

Just as a side note while I'm not the forgiveness topic, forgiveness does NOT have to lead to reconciliation or trust. There are plenty of people I have wholly forgiven, but who I wouldn't trust farther than I can comfortably spit a rat, and there are people I've forgiven but with whom I never want to have a relationship ever again. Forgiveness is putting down a grudge or writing off a debt or similar. I may forgive your debt, but it doesn't mean I'm going to extend credit to you again... ;)

Tutor
11th July 2010, 01:30 PM
True, forgiveness does mean that you accept a person, or group, as they are now without waiting for them to prove themselves to be worthy or trustworthy.
I wouldn't call that "forgiveness". I'd call that tolerance or acceptance or trust. Forgiveness implies that there is something to forgive, and it's really a personal thing, having little or nothing to do with the forgiven (i.e., the change wrought by forgiveness is always in you, and may not affect the "forgiven" at all).

Just as a side note while I'm not the forgiveness topic, forgiveness does NOT have to lead to reconciliation or trust. There are plenty of people I have wholly forgiven, but who I wouldn't trust farther than I can comfortably spit a rat, and there are people I've forgiven but with whom I never want to have a relationship ever again. Forgiveness is putting down a grudge or writing off a debt or similar. I may forgive your debt, but it doesn't mean I'm going to extend credit to you again... ;)

amen to that!

uncannily, i just had this conversation with a close relative. the look on her face was as if the last twelve years should be erased as if it had not happened, because I and the rest of our immediate family have 'forgiven' her for so much over those years.

good insight there...about trust. often it is that you can trust that another cannot be trusted.

tim

dreamosis
11th July 2010, 05:07 PM
Do you think forgiveness could be likened to the release of karma?

Tutor
11th July 2010, 05:34 PM
Do you think forgiveness could be likened to the release of karma?

what do you interpret the lord's prayer as saying?

ButterflyWoman
11th July 2010, 05:48 PM
Do you think forgiveness could be likened to the release of karma?
Yes, but it depends very much on your definition of karma.

I can tell you that forgiveness is extremely healing for the forgiver. Forgiving others is healing, and forgiving oneself is healing. Sometimes, when you forgive, the forgiven is also relieved and/or healed, but that's generally because when you forgive them, they forgive themselves.

Forgiveness is also empowering, because you can claim back all the energy and power you've put into the grudge or the attitude or the debt or the list of wrongs or whatever kind of tally you're keeping. When you release that, write it off, it's much easier to take back that energy/power, and use it for something else, something constructive. ;)

dreamosis
12th July 2010, 03:12 PM
Yes, but it depends very much on your definition of karma.


In what sense would you say karma is forgiveness?

@Tutor: How do I read the Lord's Prayer? I've never thought of it as the resolution of karma, but now that I'm considering forgiveness and the release of karma as more or less the same thing, that makes sense.

CFTraveler
12th July 2010, 03:57 PM
If you'd like to read how I see the Lord's Prayer I'll write it- I believe/guess it's similar how Tutor sees it, just a guess.

Tutor
12th July 2010, 04:13 PM
the Lord's Prayer is a tripart method of the law of reciprocation....to come nigh unto nigh, to touch yet remain as you are individually unique, as opposed to losing the true self in the ocean of being.

1. Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. Faith

note: an affirmation of faith to that which from is life given, and having so acknowledged, the asking for that continued life given, as it has never been of your own will to give life unto your self, yet yours is to live life as it is given each day.

2. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. Hope

note: the only way that forgiveness frees anyone, is from fisrt having freed from within those whom have in kind trespassed. trespass is condusive to accumulative payment, and that which is due may be reduced for one as they reduce within themself that which is due for every other.

3. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever. Charity/Love

note: this statement is flipped, bringing the controling source into faithful affirmations that both begin and end the prayer, that indeed the 'what is' "God" is alpha and omega in absolute truth as well as in one's relative truth, they now being the same in kind, man and god as one in meaning and of purpose.

Amen

thus is God in the world which you perceive only when through You is God in Faith, Hope and Charity...always three. but of these three, Charity/Love being the greatest of these.

Let Love be the finish for You...

like this is the Serenity prayer, aligning itself perfectly with the above Lord's Prayer. a Tripart of triparts or 3 cubed = 9.

1a. God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; (Faith)

2a. courage to change the things I can; (Hope)

3a. and wisdom to know the difference. (Charity/Love)

1b. Living one day at a time; (Faith)

2b. Enjoying one moment at a time; (Hope)

3b. Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; (Charity/Love)

1c.Taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it; (Faith)

2c. Trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His Will; (Hope)

3c.That I may be reasonably happy in this life and supremely happy with Him Forever in the next. (Charity/Love)

Amen.

the mathematics of prayer and the reciprocal whole nature of Man and God = (Human or Godly Man)...perhaps...

the 23rd Psalm aligns as well. there isn't much such as this that does not align to 'three'.

The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Mother).

a coma patient was asked what it was like to be gone for so long. his answer was that it was as if he missed a child, that the world outlying was as his child gone for a time, and that when he'd had enough of missing his child he came back, woke up from his coma to hear, see and feel once again this child/world that through himself was touchable.

God bless us all, that we feel to hear, see and touch our child with unconditional love, hope and faith that through this growing up or process of maturation our child/world shall be all that it is meant to be within it's own purpose finished.

we are each in every of one a triune event dawning on the horizon as our Triune Event; every single day, one day at a time...for ever and ever. Amen

tim

CFTraveler
12th July 2010, 04:36 PM
Very close to how I see it.. for once, more concise than how I would have expressed it.

Tutor
12th July 2010, 05:01 PM
Very close to how I see it.. for once, more concise than how I would have expressed it.

close enough i reckon so, that we uniquely are our very true selves, though both seeing the same thing together.

though, i'd like to read how you would uniquely express it.

tim

CFTraveler
12th July 2010, 07:40 PM
Ok I'm back- I consider the Lord's Prayer a method for us to connect with God, and by extension what you need to be happy, or a reminder that it is possible. More like a 'how to', than anything else, and much more mystical than any other movement of the time of Jesus. In other words, even though this prayer existed before Jesus came along, he refined it and gave it his own more personal view.

Our Father- In here he lets us know that God is not a feudal lord that is happy or unhappy but that he is our parent, where we came from, what we are made of. It establishes our place as inheritors of God's will.
Who Art in Heaven- Here he lets us know that in everything there is possibility- and here I believe 'heaven' is a pre-state- anything is possible if you put your faith in God.
Hallowed Be Thy Name- And what is God's name? I AM. God is pure being, and we are, and being is Holy, so that everything is holy. We are Holy because God is Holy, because we are.
Thy Kingdom Come- Now this is tricky, because the word in the original that has been translated as 'kingdom' also means 'counsel'. I look at it two ways- Ask God for counsel and you will get his kingdom. If your will is aligned with God's will, there will indeed be happiness here in the world.
Thy Will Be done- What I said above.
On Earth as it it in Heaven- A reassertion of what I said before- if you want God's counsel, if you seek it, and integrate your desire with what you perceive to be God's desire, God's counsel will establish happiness here, as it is in all possibility. Here is a hint about the nature of creativity/creation.
Give us this day our daily bread- Everyone knows what this means- and reasserts that if you align your inner life the outer life will reflect the inner life.
And Leave us not in temptation- That is, when you don't focus in God you let the world of appearances fool you- God doesn't 'lead' you into temptation, but (he) will let you focus where you want, because you have that option.
And forgive our debts as we forgive our debtors- I'm going back to the 'old' way of saying it, I like it best, because it goes back to how you see the world. If you go around the world thinking about what this one or that one did to you, you will never have peace. But if you look at life as an opportunity to express God and forgiveness, happiness is yours.
That simple, really.
But deliver us from evil/error- Here is an interesting note: The word for 'evil' is the same word that means 'unripe' or 'green'- so that the word 'immature' is probably closer to his intent- so that the idea of 'bad things' is really an error in judgement. Food for thought, and goes back to the 'world of appearances' vs. inner truth.
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, - Everything comes from God- the counsel, the power and the Glory.
Forever, amen.- Self explanatory, And so It is.

ButterflyWoman
12th July 2010, 11:20 PM
Yes, but it depends very much on your definition of karma.

In what sense would you say karma is forgiveness?
I wouldn't. I would say that forgiveness is a means of releasing karma.

Tutor
13th July 2010, 02:02 PM
CFT,

outstanding. you've a real knack for clarifying simplicity in your writing/expression.

mystical is what it is, soft as vapor. the world is hard only when one is hardened toward it.

merely the difference between a funeral mourning the loss of a relationship and a wake celebrating the life lived having now crossed over.

dreamosis
13th July 2010, 04:43 PM
I wouldn't. I would say that forgiveness is a means of releasing karma.

I mistyped, I think. I meant, I suppose, in what sense would you say forgiveness is anti-karma? That is, a counter to karma?

CFTraveler and Tutor, what sort of prayer do you use to initiate a healing (Reiki or otherwise)? I understand if that's too personal of a question, but the segue into the Lord's Prayer made me think of it.

Does the Lord's Prayer (in essence, if nothing else) relate to the way you being a self-healing session?

CFTraveler
13th July 2010, 04:58 PM
I am not a Reiki healer, but I've been told I'm attuned to Reiki 1. However, I didn't pursue it on purpose. (It's hard to explain) however, when I need healing, the Lord's Prayer is the first 'place' I look for, where I center myself, where I feel safe.
I don't usually do self-healing, although I have been somewhat trained in it in the New Thought tradition. however, I just don't seem to be interested enough in self healing, I'm more of a 'heal whoever wants me to' kind of person.

dreamosis
13th July 2010, 05:04 PM
Why didn't you pursue it, if you don't mind me asking?

I was attuned to Reiki I in 1999 and have, since then, spent some time away from it. Sometimes it seems to be exactly what I need and sometimes it feels imbalanced to me. Overall, I feel like there's too much emphasis on seeking "above" in Reiki and not enough of an emphasis -- within the bare tradition itself -- on grounding and earth energy.

CFTraveler
13th July 2010, 05:05 PM
I just haven't found the time to go somewhere and be taught. It's not a matter of interest, it's more a matter of having the time.

ButterflyWoman
13th July 2010, 05:35 PM
I meant, I suppose, in what sense would you say forgiveness is anti-karma? That is, a counter to karma?
Well, it's a powerful releasing of energy, of "stuff" you're hanging on to. That's exactly how I see karma: stuff you're hanging on to. I don't go for the "divine punishment being meted out by some unseen judge" thing. I just see it as reaping what you sow, and tying up your energy in various things. When you forgive, you can release that energy in positive ways.

dreamosis
13th July 2010, 07:12 PM
Does anybody think it's possible for karma to be released through Reiki or other energy healing?

CFTraveler
13th July 2010, 09:05 PM
For the purposes of not repeating myself, I discuss what I think Karma is in this topic- (http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9899&p=77822) so I'd ask you, do you think Reiki (or any energy system) can work to clarify your perceived intention when it comes to self-agreements?

dreamosis
13th July 2010, 10:26 PM
...do you think Reiki (or any energy system) can work to clarify your perceived intention when it comes to self-agreements?

I'd say that what Reiki and many other energywork systems do is to integrate the normal conscious mind with deeper layers of awareness. Reiki, in particular, is about operating from the pure center of being.

My own experience has been that higher awareness can have an automatic organizing and healing effect. The type of concentration and perspective needed for most energywork -- identifying with the Witness -- puts you in a position to neutrally review your own thoughts and feelings.

Tutor
14th July 2010, 01:29 AM
i dont imagine that there is an anti-karma, as karma is karma, cause and effect...period.

but, there is dharma...

to be honest, unless i feel a specific calling toward a specific prayer, i do not institute methodical praying. this because mindfulness is prayer, where the awareness is conscious of the world around them. but, here the term 'conscious' doesnt necessarily mean to just be looking out at outlying questions needing internal answers.

it is enough to understand that God loves, and from this love helps those who are bad as well as those who are good. though, what most would call help, or that which helps their selfish nature, is not the 'help' which is freely given of God's good grace.

thus, is 'karma', or cause and effect, part of what is grace, of what is God's love...etc.

'karma' is not a four letter word of negative portent, it is a positive force of reckoning, of reconciliation in and of God's Love.

perhaps then anti-karma is equivalent to anti-christ, yet there is no evil thing/deed that does not lead to it's cost to the last farthing, even as the one commiting that deed is never unloved.

such as to mean, one who doesn't seem to care about the cost, going ahead and doing whatever their will feels free to do.

ignorance is not above the law's reach, though it is dealt with leniently. yet, woe unto one who knowing well enough would still not care to at least ponder the cost.

it is about transformation in a given field, or given fields. perhaps to say that within said fields, the 'fear of sin' developes wherein the concience becomes strong enough to weigh the cost/s and from that stands down.

furthermore, developed well enough, one begins to, or it opens for one, to develope a profound love for God as Beloved and the 'fear of being separated from God' as Lover holds sway in the life.

this all, of course leading up to the finish of unconditional love realized as that love which God administered all along, never having abandoned one at any time for any reason, knowing all along that they'd reach the finish of their Godly Character.

this is where God and They become Friends, whom as friends never look back, as if it never was, never a day between, never a time when there was not this boundless unconditional love.

or to say, that before one ever was, in God's thought they were finished to completion, even as through time said perfect thought made the perfect journey in it's perfect finish.

perhaps...

tim

dreamosis
14th July 2010, 04:27 PM
By "anti-karma" I mostly meant antidote. No, there's no antidote to cause and effect -- except, maybe, awareness of one's actions, Right Action.

I believe I once heard that the most literal translation of karma is action.

Indeed, mindfulness is prayer.

Sometimes, I find, a healing is effected by simple mindfulness.

Tutor
14th July 2010, 05:18 PM
By "anti-karma" I mostly meant antidote. No, there's no antidote to cause and effect -- except, maybe, awareness of one's actions, Right Action.

I believe I once heard that the most literal translation of karma is action.

Indeed, mindfulness is prayer.

Sometimes, I find, a healing is effected by simple mindfulness.

all of your life, all of YOU..., is as if in a cup; a cup which the constituents of are the sweet ambrosia of your living being along with the bitter dregs of your errors in life to the last drop.

thus is awareness in it's full import, that one drinks it all down, good and evil of their own doing/volition from their very own sense of being that from has done, that one of man claims the birthright of being one of humanity's body of being.

thrice born

God intimated, "I knew YOU (by Nature) before you were ever you (by Name)".

you (by Name) born of mankind into the world of men naming this Nature.

YOU (by Nature) which God knew before you, born of the spirited cup into the true meaning of being Human, undeniably part and parcel to the body of Humanity.

'known' Nature through a Name becomes Nature 'understood'.

this is how an Image would find itself perfectly reflected as image, through the Name. thus Image and Nature are One, just as Nature and image are one in perfect reflection of the aforementioned.

Name is the connection, the arc of the covenant, which from these two makes the very heart beat, the heart being the very epicenter of sourced beingness connective of inner truth to outlying reflective truth individually and collectively expressed in our shared world.

thus, truth is for anyone and for all as one, in that 'cup' (*Samech) to be drank to the last drop, dregs and all. this alone opens the drowsy eye (*Ayin) to awesome wonder. *original symbols & Sam = poison, ech = Hu, from which did such as awakened Samuel arise and with Sight see, not claiming for himself sovereignty, but rather identifying outside of himself the Sovereign King.

what is sweet (known) when touched by bitterness (bitter resolve) (understanding) is ever the Sweetest, that being YOU.

perhaps...

tim

Tom
14th July 2010, 07:44 PM
Karma is just a word, and it says that effects come from causes. There is always the possibility of modifying the results until they have finished and they are over with. Maybe reiki can be an effective tool for modifying results for some people, and maybe not for others.

I think it might be helpful to talk about forgiveness of sins. Jesus told his followers that what they kept bound on earth was also bound in heaven, and what they released on earth was released in heaven. He did not keep the power of forgiveness to himself. People heal, and then they give themselves this forgiveness. Until that happens they punish themselves over and over and over.

dreamosis
14th July 2010, 08:50 PM
Do most people here consider karma and sin to be the same thing?

CFTraveler
15th July 2010, 01:17 AM
I don't; but I won't repeat myself. I will say, though that I don't believe in sin, as advertised.

ButterflyWoman
15th July 2010, 05:13 AM
Do most people here consider karma and sin to be the same thing?
I don't.

Tom
15th July 2010, 07:25 AM
Beyond that you should choose to do good when you get a chance, karma isn't really what you should worry about. It is kleshas that get you every time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kle%C5%9B% ... uddhism%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kle%C5%9B%C4%81_%28Buddhism%29)

star
20th July 2010, 07:08 AM
I'm jumping in.

As far as a healing type of energy - it works damn well. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to work on everyone, the body (of people in general) has to be wired to accept energy or healing. This is one of the reasons people can hang out or play with someone with a powerful energy and not be "turned on" Call it Karma or whatever, this is just what i've noticed from looking at people through my third eye and sending energy to random strangers to watch the effects. Sometimes you have to hit a frequency they can recognize too. Although I haven't become strong enough to just blast someone with enough Reiki or chi to force an effect unless they were already very relaxed..

What does this have to do with anything? For many Reiki comes down to belief, as does anything that has to do with chakras or chi, jing or shen. Beliefs play into what your able to experience, this is why I see the Zen folks getting it right, meditating with no expectation is a great start. Scrub that brain!

You don't even have to believe in Reiki for it to work, either in healing or attunement. Just meditate for about 30 minutes and put yourself into a relaxed and receptive state; if someone sent you energy to pick up and you call it in it is easy to feel, sometimes it is full-bodied if your lucky enough to have someone who knows what they are doing. If no energy is available, then you don't notice anything. Easy. You just have to hope that you've prepared yourself enough to receive energy in the first place. Well, doesn't that just suck? Anyhoo...

I've noticed that the different symbols work their basic intent as prescribed on the internet and in the manuals, and placing them on someone even in the astral causes the energy to work.

So in order to use Reiki I can either grab onto someone who is using it and follow it to its source and hook myself up or I can let someone do it for me. Damn, it is so much easier to let someone do it for me, and many people pay a boatload to receive it, sorry, if you look around enough you’ll find someone who can hook you up for free.. I fail to see how Reiki is like a religion, I don’t go to the Reiki church and listen to someone tell me the Reiki tenants. In fact I don’t even remember anything about the directions on how to use it or “proper use” of it. I’ve seen how it works and that it can be changed or directed in a hundred different directions. Its easy as pie. No Reiki bible required.
Sorta like meditation in general, if someone is telling you the “only way” you’re probably screwed and being lied to.

dreamosis
20th July 2010, 03:29 PM
@Tom, thanks for that link. Indeed, I can see how kleshas would have much more of an impact on your immediate life than karma.

@Star, I've found the symbols to work as they've generally been described to work too. Right after receiving the second-level attunement, I was amazed at how well they worked. Their potency declined over time, but I can still get back into that "groove" by lots of meditation and practice.

No, Reiki isn't a religion. The question remains for me, though, of whether the tradition would be helped overall (especially in the future) by an effort to organize as much as possible.

chrystalpaths
10th August 2010, 03:01 PM
Interesting thread and discussion. SO many different thots and feelings.
For me, Reiki is not religion or religious but it is very spiritual.
For me, Reiki is like breathing, like my heartbeat, it is me and I am it.
For me, Reiki is a life choice. It fills me up with help when needed, guidance when lost, healing when sick or hurt.
Reiki guides me, allows me to guide others in humble light.
There are no bells and whistles, no Amens or our Fathers but in it; when open as a pure intended vessel; it can do no harm and can do much good, healing in all ways.

I like the one bit I read saying if you are open and want it, invite it in. Yes!
Reiju is like that as well. Reiju floats round always, if you need; simply ask for it and it will fill you up.
I will keep my response very simple in what I believe.
Religion is faith based on a God or Christ.
Reiki is a body mind and soul enlightenment and yes needs faith/belief in that energy to help and even to heal.

How are they different?
The one demands nothing but balance, Reiki.
Sage

Tutor
11th August 2010, 01:12 PM
chrystalpaths,

absolutely 'right on'! 8)

tim