PDA

View Full Version : A Review of Reiki



dreamosis
16th January 2009, 10:26 PM
Let me preface this post by saying that I am a Reiki practitioner, and have been since 1999 when I took a first level class. I am currently in training to be a teacher.

I'm initiating this post with an invitation to AD forum members to offer criticism of the practice of Reiki. Obviously there are many different styles of Reiki practice, i.e., Rainbow Reiki, Seichim Reiki, Karuna Reiki, and on and on. And then there is the way that each individual practitioner goes about his or her work.

I feel that any tradition, in order to remain healthy, must be questioned. I'm therefore interested in a discussion of any negative experiences with Reiki or Reiki practitioners, and in specific criticisms of the way in which Reiki is practiced. If you haven't practiced Reiki, or experienced it, or witnessed it first-hand, please don't respond. I'm interested in opinions informed by experience, not intellectual speculation.

I'll begin by dredging up a common teaching connected to Reiki practice: that "Reiki does no harm." I hear this bandied about so often, and I feel, irresponsibly. From my experience, even if it is true that Reiki does no harm, practitioners can do harm. And, as a result of a healing process instigated by Reiki, clients can and do feel discomfort and pain.

star
19th January 2009, 03:49 AM
Reiki filters through us before it reaches the target. Intent can create a destrucctive resonance as opposed to a healing one but I have yet to experiment with this on friends and whatnot. Than at time too much energy can force emotional blocks past a person faster than they can handle causing havoc with a persons mind.

Reiki is a form of akasha, you can find the elements that make akasha in reiki and break it down or force another element to become more powerful. In this way you can create a type of energy that breaks and destroys as well. Done manually.

As far as reiki practices are concerned it seems that most are taught very, very slowly. Its very easy to learn reiki and start to practice. Its simple as cake but far too many restrictions are in place.

I also see that far too little is taught or known about reiki. Knowlege is just not known or not taught. Many people don't realize that reiki is being channeled through the higher self before it reaches us or that mass scale healings can be done with great efficiency becuase the energy is handeled by the higher self when its 'too much'.

That's all I have for now.

star
19th January 2009, 03:53 AM
I think another issue is payment. A reiki attunement only does so much. The same thing can be received via self attunement, higher self, or friendly internet contact.

dreamosis
20th January 2009, 07:20 PM
Thanks for responding.


Reiki is a form of akasha, you can find the elements that make akasha in reiki and break it down or force another element to become more powerful. In this way you can create a type of energy that breaks and destroys as well. Done manually.

I don't completely understand what you're saying here. I agree that Reiki (as a word describing an energy, at least) is a form of, or synonomous with, the akasha; but my understanding of akasha is that it's the source, so to me, there aren't "elements that make akasha," rather it's akasha that generates the elements. You might have to give me an example of what you mean.

But, yes, Reiki is filtered. It is only as pure as the channel, no matter the intent.


A reiki attunement only does so much. The same thing can be received via self attunement, higher self, or friendly internet contact.

My own Reiki teacher told me that there are three kinds of "attunements." The attunement that's received from a ritual, the attunement that's the result of association with a master, and the attunement that comes from one's personal practice. I would say all three are important, but personal practice I look at as the most important.

I personally dislike the idea of distant attunements via the internet (as far as Reiki goes) because, to me, the actual ritual isn't the most important part of a Reiki training -- equally as important is interacting with someone who is more experienced than you and/or forming insights and new awarenesses as a result of interacting with other students and the teacher. The latter can be as much a part of the "attunement" as the ritual itself. That isn't to say that internet attunements don't work, however.

Addition:

Also, as I've begun to train as a Reiki teacher, my understanding of attunements has dramatically changed. Attunement is only the end effect of what happens in the passing-on of Reiki, but the passing-on is more than merely helping a student tune in to Reiki or pure spiritual energy or the akashic principle -- however you want to think of it.

As far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly true that anyone can self-attune to pure spiritual energy. Reiki, though, is a specific traditional path for interacting with pure spiritual energy. So simply tuning in to akasha and directing it for the purposes of enlightenment or healing is not necessarily Reiki, just as practicing Reiki is not the same as shamanic healing or Christian faith-healing -- even if they all draw from the same source.

I don't say this in order to confer speciality or mystery onto Reiki, I'm simply saying that it's a defined tradition and that attunements by teachers are a part of that tradition. The "tuning-in" happens with the transference of lineal energy patterns which allow a student to benefit from the ability of the teachers in his or her lineage.

Granted, this is not a mainstream Reiki teaching, but is my understanding, and the understanding of some other Reiki practitioners I know and have communicated with as well.

Timotheus
1st February 2009, 09:16 PM
:D

dreamosis
2nd February 2009, 05:14 PM
i never ask for the unseen 'reiki masters', i always pray that it be so in the name of the Son Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit, they three as one flowing force for healing energy.


Isn't calling on Jesus the same as asking for an unseen master?

Timotheus
2nd February 2009, 06:16 PM
:D

dreamosis
3rd February 2009, 12:54 AM
I have had one clear experience with Jesus, or with a power known as Jesus, but I don't consider Jesus a part of the Reiki tradition per se. I say a "power" because in the dream I was guided to go beyond the vision of Jesus as a physical being / crucified god image and interact with Jesus as a field of joyous energy. I can't describe it more specifically than that, though.


and upon that recognition, what of these claimed masters running (seen or unseen) about servicing the ignorant with misguided notions of true self?

I honestly don't know anything about "these claimed masters." Myself, I do not call on masters in order to practice Reiki. I look at the ability to interact with pure spiritual energy as the birthright of all beings; although I don't see all channeling of pure spiritual energy as practicing Reiki. To me, Reiki is a specific tradition of doing this that has grown out of the Japanese culture and, by extension, the Chinese culture. And insofar as the practice of Reiki is influenced by Buddhist ideology, the Indian culture. However, as the Reiki tradition has been passed on to me, there isn't any religious figure in it.

When I began on my Reiki path, I was told the legend of Reiki in which Mikao Usui was said to be a Christian and was looking for the hands-on-healing method of Jesus. Since then I've learned that that story is uncorroborated. My teacher is a Christian and Jesus Christ is an important figure for her, and she calls on Christ during her practice -- but she didn't teach me that it was necessary to do this. Myself, I'm not a practicing Christian. I don't belong to any Christian church, and I don't pray to Jesus Christ or in his name, or specifically to Jesus Christ's father.


i always pray that it be so in the name of the Son Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit, they three as one flowing force for healing energy.

This statement is confusing to me. I'm confused probably because I have a different understanding than you of the Son Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. From your words, you seem to view them as impersonal forces -- separate but capable of flowing as one. Also from your words, though, Jesus seems like a personal figure to you, an individual spirit who incarnated and achieved the highest level of metaphysical development possible. I don't know if ascension means to you that the person stops being an individual spirit at that point or if they become equal to the Father or what. The idea of channeling someone's spirit into someone else's soul or body for healing seems strange to me, though, no matter how refined or advanced that spirit has become.

Again I'm not a practicing Christian, but I have read the New Testament and some Gnostic texts and I remember Jesus saying that he couldn't do anything without the Father. It seems his healing and ability to do miracles was mediated by the Father. But I can't remember if he specifically said it was the Father that allowed his healings or not.

I'll be honest: I've always viewed Jesus as an inspiration, but more of as a way-shower than anything else. I mean, I agree with this:


cleave not to that which places anything between you and god alone

And since I agree with that, I don't really concern myself with Jesus or with a concept of a trinity. I use different names and descriptions of god in my own mind, but they're synonymous with a concept of a source.

Timotheus
3rd February 2009, 03:03 AM
:D

dreamosis
3rd February 2009, 05:24 PM
you said something that struck me as odd, that the Father seemed as the mediator. i see this as a misunderstanding, for it is Jesus, the son, which is the mediator. and furthermore it is the nature of the name Jesus within each that may by choice serve in mediation.

I miswrote. In the context of the miracle stories in the New Testament, I do see Jesus as a mediator -- but a meditator of the Father. What he is mediating, as I understand it, is the Father or godforce.


the point is, is that it doesnt matter whether it is a reiki practitioner, a shaman, or a christian healer...etc; the radiant energy flow (spirit moving) of love's healing is the same coming from one lighted source.

I agree and disagree with this statement. To me, the fact that two paths lead to the same destination does not make them the same path; it only makes them paths with the same destination. If you think from the perspective that all that matters is the destination, then talking about differences between paths is pointless. If you recognize that some paths are better suited for different individuals, then there is a point.

We live in an increasingly globalized world and are constantly asked to be politically correct. Out of response to this a lot of spiritual seekers have been trying to intellectually unify different paths. With the internet, and unprecendented access to various traditions, people are able to see interconnections between them all. So we see that Reiki is analagous to Holy Spirit, perhaps, and we say they are the same. We see that several cultures have myths of virgin births and resurrected solar deities and so we say Jesus and Horus are the same.

On one level I think is very true, commendable, and necessary -- cross-cultural understanding is needed now. On another level I see this as a focus on the peak instead of the trail; a focus on result instead of process. What I've seen is that people who spend their time (and I've done a lot of it) culture-jumping and trying exercises from this and that tradition, is that their experience of the divine remains shallow.

The symbols, exercises, and views which belong to a local tradition are discarded in the bird's eye pan-culturalism, yet it's the local symbols, exercises, and views that support that path to the divine. I do believe that it's necessary to eventually understand your path as only one of many, as ultimately arbitrary, and come to see your set of symbols and exercises as transparent -- and even try others from other paths. At one point, the person becomes the path. Before you can become a path, however, you must understand what a path is. Also, becoming a yellow belt in ten different karate styles doesn't make you a black belt.

This is a strange argument for me to make for Reiki, though. I will admit that Reiki, as a tradition, is far less complete than mainstream or Gnostic Christianity. I think that's one reason why Christianity has been grafted onto the practice of Reiki, why Egyptian teachings have been grafted on to it, why shamanistic teachings have been grafted onto it. The practitioners have been trying to "complete" the path.

Another view is that the Reiki tradition is so simple that most can't recognize it as a complete path. The teacher of my teacher says that the five principles are the core of the Reiki path. Briefly they are: let go of anger; let go of worry; be grateful; work hard; be kind.

The intellect tends to dismiss these principles and say, "Oh, well, there's nothing unique about those principles. They're pretty much a re-hashing of the Meiji Emperor's, or the Buddhist precepts -- which of course have their corollaries in every major -- blah, blah, blah."

Now consider what your life would actually be like if you were able to masterfully live every day without being controlled by your anger, your anxieties, if you were genuinely happy for all you had, applied yourself diligently to all you did, and showed kindness to yourself and others as often as possible. What would your life be like? What would happen if you followed that specific and narrow path as faithfully as you could, calling on pure spiritual energy to support you in it?

On a broader note, seeing the differences between paths is what allows us to choose positivity or negativity. Negativity and total self-service is be a path to divinity as much as positivity and altruism is a path to divinity. From the perspective of the All, they're the same. If the divine is in everything, then serving ego is serving the divine. Yet the paths do not feel the same. They both lead to a common destination, but by radically divided routes.

None of this is to say, however, that a Reiki practice should not be wedded with Christianity or shamanism or ceremonial magick. I'm only trying to call attention to the essence of the tradition.

Timotheus
3rd February 2009, 06:34 PM
:D

dreamosis
3rd February 2009, 08:47 PM
that you determine that persons must become a path dispells that you do not understand that the very flesh is the path inward for all, though temporarily misguided by individual personalitys in the effort of survival.

one is never not a path. one need not become, for they are. one need only awaken to it, be conscious of it, the flesh which they are in bondage to, the very entrenched hardwired brain which chooses for them while they sleepwalk through life.

This resonates with me a lot. In talking of paths what I mean is how one awakens to the inward path. I didn't say that explicitly before, but that's generally what I'm trying to get at. I did make it sound like I think traditions are paths to Source, but deep down I really only see them as rough maps offered by those who've made the inward journey, like the wisdom offered in the New Testament.


your readiness to debate where there is none boggles any hope of shared profitable discussion.

Me getting into debate mode mostly had to do with all the praise of Jesus. I reacted to that like you were saying that Christianity is the right path for everybody.

Timotheus
4th February 2009, 01:21 AM
:D

dreamosis
4th February 2009, 05:04 PM
Tim,

I'm really glad for your input and your challenge to me. No offense is taken. I am wet behind the ears, and I often prove it to myself. :wink:

Yesterday, waiting for the train, I was contemplating what you wrote about the the ever-present three forces (the trinity) and remembered a fellow Reiki practitioner told me once that Reiki is a composite of three vibrations: blue, white, and gold. Or, at least, they told me that's what they were told by their teacher. We both wondered about it.

I have been contemplating the triple nature of Reiki in the form of the symbols. I've been taught that symbol 1 (choku rei) correponds to earth; symbol 2 (sei heiki) corresponds to the sun; and symbol 3 (hon sha ze sho nen) corresponds to unlimitedness. The third was also explained to be equal to Christ Consciousness or love. Maybe I should add that this teaching came from a Japanese Buddhist and from a Christian to me. My immediate teacher felt in "unlimitedness" a connection to Christ Consciousness and love. ... I feel the connection too.

The three-in-one concept is difficult for me -- perhaps because I try to analyze it. The most sense it's ever made to me is in the Gnostic teaching of the active, passive, and neutralizing forces. They're demonstrated with a metaphor of baking bread. The passive force is the flour mix, the active force is the fire that cooks the bread, and the neutralizing force is the water that both prevents the flour from burning and allows it to rise into a new form (i.e., bread).

The concept of the trinity might relate to those forces. The active force (the Father), the passive force (the Holy Spirit), and the neutralizing force (Christ Consciousness).

The earth, sun, and unlimitedness associations of symbols 1, 2, and 3 could be seen as earth=passive force/Holy Spirit, sun=active force/Father, and unlimitedness=neutralizing force/Christ Consciousness or love. And this dovetails with the conversation of Christ as a mediator between the Father and the earth/humanity/or the body.

Correspondences don't necessarily add up to wisdom, but dwelling on it has helped me. My own experience of Reiki is of a singular energy, but I've been contemplating the meaning of the three symbols for a while.

Timotheus
4th February 2009, 05:25 PM
:D

Timotheus
4th February 2009, 06:15 PM
:D

dreamosis
4th February 2009, 06:56 PM
Hmmm, thanks Tim.

About the feminine as the active force...I remembered that in Japan the sun is seen as female.

Timotheus
4th February 2009, 08:13 PM
:D

Modest
6th February 2009, 04:43 PM
Reiki = prana. Prana interacts with chakras and so has spec. qualities. Reiki uses 7th and 4 chakra to heal i.e. hands. The person doesn't have to be pure. He can be a scum. It doesn't influence energy quality but it influences its strength.
To me Reiki is a set of methods, a philosophy. The attunement just clears blocks in the energy body. One can clear them via various methods. Reiki attunement has the quality that it usualy doesn't disbalance the person too much. The methods and the philosophy should be inspected on their own ground i.e. if you don't like the teachers point of view dump it and find your own methods & view. But the attunement done by a powerful i.e. clean master is beneficial.

dreamosis
6th February 2009, 06:19 PM
The person doesn't have to be pure. He can be a scum. It doesn't influence energy quality but it influences its strength.

In my own experience, an energy healer affects his or her clients in the same way that any random stranger influences you on the bus. Trying to protect a recipient from your personal baggage by setting an intention is admirable, but I don't think it should be mistaken as an absolute measure.

A "scum" Reiki practitioner may be able to mediate the same quality of energy as a balanced master, but he can't totally prevent his personal energy from interacting with a recipient.

We live in a sea of energy like fish in a pond. We can't not be affected by others' aggregate frequencies as fish can't not be affected by the ripples, scents, and filth, of other fish. Even in the instance of self-shielding, you are still affected. Consciously working with energy gives you an advantage, but it doesn't remove you from the world.


The attunement just clears blocks in the energy body.

From experience receiving and administering attunements, I would say this is only part of what an attunement does. I used to think of them as a sort of super-charged healing, but my perspective shifted, and is still shifting.

The attuning seems to be more than a taking away, more than scrubbing a window clean so that sun can shine through it. It also involves a subtle interaction between master and student which changes the student. This isn't an orthodox teaching in Reiki, or it's just not well-understood.

I was personally taught that there are three kinds of attunement, or reiju: (1) from the ritual attunement; (2) from the association with a master; (3) from one's personal practice. The third, I believe, is the most profound, the most necessary, and is the true initiation. Yet that doesn't discount the power of the first two.

Also, the three can't really be separated. The second type of attunement is happening simultaneously with the first, and the second is happening during the whole period of training -- until the student's field is more or less "equal" to the master's. The third begins before training, happens during training, and continues into a person becoming a master-practitioner or a teacher too.

The popular view of the attunement is that it's just a clearing, just a tuning in. One reason I think that's the perception is because, in the West, we're less teacher-oriented. Teachers, masters, gurus are more of an Eastern thing. The mystical traditions in the West involve rugged self-initiation and reliance on inner teachers. Both ways have pluses and minuses. In the East, many gurus have grown corrupt and have set themselves up as gods. In the West, everyone who has an inner awakening invents a new system, writes a book, and undiscerning seekers devour it, and experiment a little until the next book comes out.

In a balanced teacher-oriented system, a teacher merely points a way and ultimately encourages a reliance on self. In a balanced self-initiation system, a seeker asks for help if needed and accepts the council and comfort of his fellows.


if you don't like the teachers point of view dump it and find your own methods & view.

I heartily agree. I do think there are a lot of imbalanced systems out there that have been invented in the last few years, but you do have to do what works for you.

Timotheus
6th February 2009, 06:53 PM
:D

dreamosis
6th February 2009, 10:26 PM
Indeed, Reiki is better caught than taught.

Modest
7th February 2009, 01:48 AM
Dreamosis, yes, your energy body effects the recipient. But you balance it (you feel the heart chakra more than others) when you send energy through your heart chakra i.e. hands. So the effects are of the heart chakra.
You are right about 3 types of attunement. The master type is a bit tricky. The thing is that he can have a strong energy body balanced to a particular chakra. Try to feel Krishna devotee, Shiva kundalini yogi energies - they are masters but their chakras are balanced differently. It is good to be attuned to a particular master you are serving, it helps to develop the energy body but it's bad because you get trapped in his particular chakra balance and so may fail to see by yourself. I agree that there're pro's and con's you mention.

dreamosis
7th February 2009, 07:20 PM
It is good to be attuned to a particular master you are serving, it helps to develop the energy body but it's bad because you get trapped in his particular chakra balance and so may fail to see by yourself.

Yes, and this is where Western systems are better -- they don't fall as easily into the trap of teacher-worship. A good teacher will notice if the student is growing dependent or is unnaturally mimicking. A good teacher, like a mother bird, pushes the chick out of the nest to fly on its own.


You are right about 3 types of attunement. The master type is a bit tricky.

The master type is a bit tricky, I think, mostly because of a lack of real masters. Reiki has spread through the world like a fast-food franchise. Ritual-attunement is widely viewed as a kind of etheric cosmetic operation that you get in a quick visit to a teacher. Positive spiritual changes can happen instantly, but oftentimes, changes in the energy body need time and space to be integrated with the physical body.

Also, I've noticed that the ritual-attunements sometimes don't take if there isn't a corresponding pursuit of self-attunement on behalf of the student. It's paradoxical: to receive it you must already have it, and to have it your spiritual hands must be open and not closed.

Timotheus
7th February 2009, 09:49 PM
:D

Modest
7th February 2009, 09:56 PM
Well said. I call it an open or closed aura. I got the info from Ethan Vorley - Methaphysics free pdf. If the person using his ego or some practice closes his aura another person can't influence him. That includes healing & as I believe, attunement.

Timotheus
7th February 2009, 10:22 PM
:D

Modest
7th February 2009, 10:56 PM
Timotheus, you have some good points but please try to express them in as little words as possible. It is hard to read long posts and the clarity is greatly reduced. No offence. Just my 2 c.

star
10th February 2009, 12:33 AM
I feel that Reiki really just allows us to tap into the healing ability that already exists in a person. Reiki increases in power and the amount that can be channelled as a person learns about his or herself and makes the descision to heal with Reiki more often. Also, getting in touch with the higher self is a key of sorts, since the higher self can send much more of the stuff than our physical incarnation can at any time.

dreamosis
10th February 2009, 09:23 PM
Also, getting in touch with the higher self is a key of sorts, since the higher self can send much more of the stuff than our physical incarnation can at any time.

I've started doing this more since I read Robert Bruce's online essay about healing -- which later appeared in ENERGY WORK. Although, for me, the felt sense of it isn't of communing with a "self," as much as the core of my awareness from which all other layers flow. But I guess that's what a lot of people mean when they say higher self.

...Also, I intuitively feel -- and I've heard this from others too -- that integrating our higher self with our physical body as much as possible is what will really empower us (as healers and as beings).

star
23rd February 2009, 08:45 PM
Also, getting in touch with the higher self is a key of sorts, since the higher self can send much more of the stuff than our physical incarnation can at any time.

I've started doing this more since I read Robert Bruce's online essay about healing -- which later appeared in ENERGY WORK. Although, for me, the felt sense of it isn't of communing with a "self," as much as the core of my awareness from which all other layers flow. But I guess that's what a lot of people mean when they say higher self.

...Also, I intuitively feel -- and I've heard this from others too -- that integrating our higher self with our physical body as much as possible is what will really empower us (as healers and as beings).

I don't know about that last part, as for me I went through my crown chakra, becuase I always feel energy come from above it, and followed the cord upwards. Or I go into my crown chakra and follow it inwards, I imagine a gate and simply pass through. The higher self can be interpreted in many ways, I just think Higher Self is used becuase the energy structure that makes up the higher self seems to be located in the sun. Thats only from my observations though, can't say if its the same for every one.

When I reached my Monad, or the part of us deeper than the "higher self" my crown chakra started to burn, and my body was convulsing with belly laughter. Also, it was very, very easy to use energy in anyway, and in large quantities. My teacher told me to stop channeling energy, that i was burning out and that it would cause issues. I kept going until he jumped on me and put his hands over my head and started cooling me off.

Also, when the HIgher self communicated with me I couldn't figure out what all the images meant, and the part of me that "felt" emotion and meaning is still closed. That is my experience anyway, I can only explain to you what I believe it to be from that - All other theories are just that for me right now.

I have been able to find it by going inwards too though. I go through the crown chakra, but it seems that I can go through any chakra and could get the same effect.

dreamosis
23rd February 2009, 11:50 PM
as for me I went through my crown chakra, becuase I always feel energy come from above it, and followed the cord upwards. Or I go into my crown chakra and follow it inwards, I imagine a gate and simply pass through.

Thanks for sharing this. I mostly feel a downward flow of Reiki through the crown; although, lately, what I feel is more like I'm surrounded by a gentle wave of Reiki as it flows simultaneously down through my head, from the back to the front of my heart, and of course through my arms. I also feel it welling up within my torso and heart from an impersonal place.

The passing within through the crown chakra is a very cool idea.

star
24th February 2009, 06:31 PM
I'm glad that helps. I just try to post my experiences just incase someone finds some meaning from it.

dreamosis
24th February 2009, 08:50 PM
I don't pretend that there's any right way to experience or mediate Reiki. Visualizing it coming down through the crown seems to work for almost everyone, though.

star
24th February 2009, 09:38 PM
Do you visualize it? I just intend for it to flow, and it is there. Most the time I don't even feel it but the effects on others has been profound.

dreamosis
24th February 2009, 10:03 PM
Do you visualize it?

I both imagine it and see it in my mind's eye. I also sometimes just feel for it and it's there. I usually get visual impressions of color and draw-patterns after it's running through me, but yeah, I often connect to it by visualization.

Sometimes I don't feel it very strongly either. As it's a balancing energy, it can be difficult to feel because its effect is evening and pacifying. I find it I feel it the most when it spontaneously runs in the presence of somebody who is in need for whatever reason.