Yes, embracing self acceptance leads to wholeness, separation and detachment leads to suffering, all is one.

Hi Paul .

I would say paul that the 100 million dollar question Is -

Do we choose to remember and forget what we are or not .

One answer would therefore Imply that on some level we chose to suffer and the other answer would Imply that we have no choice other than to suffer .

dazzle .

Hi Daz

I would say paul that the 100 million dollar question Is -

Do we choose to remember and forget what we are or not .

One answer would therefore Imply that on some level we chose to suffer and the other answer would Imply that we have no choice other than to suffer .

As we come here without an understanding of self and we have to create one out of what we are told we are, together with what we choose to create from within our own experiences, then I do no perceive suffering as remembering or forgetting aspects of self, but more the way we choose to create a self perception right now.

To my understanding suffering is one way of being which leads to an experience of suffering among many ways of being which lead to different experiences which we can choose to embrace within our realities, so yes suffering is optional, we do have a choice, we can't change other people but we can always change ourselves.

Hi Giles,
It is not the numbers that make the evidence, but the way in which it is done. I agree that much more investigation needs to be done into healing therapies, but if it is to be proven simply claiming witness is not enough to provide evidence. If you choose to ignore the "scientists" and only believe in witness that is your business, but the point of evidence is to stop those who have no means to discriminate from being fooled - and treated in a fraudulent manner, especially where money changes hands, but even without that facet of the 'profession'. There is very little attempts by complimentary therapies to test the effectiveness of their therapies in a full manner, for many this is deliberate I believe, and that is because many would not show any benefits other than placebo effects. This makes it even more important for those that do work (and many do I believe) to show they are effective.

Paul's system (and I think your equivalent) make claims, you claim there is plenty of evidence, but nothing apart from witness or your statements are presented. You said there was plenty of evidence - is this just isolated witness or practitioner promises or is there some? It is no use blaming me for some limitation - this is just misdirection - you said there is plenty of evidence -where is it? If there is none available other than personal witness of the practitioner than it merely makes it all look suspect - to keep blaming others of the inability to simply believe adds no credence to your system. We are asked only to take your word, or listen to someone who felt benefit, but these are what you wish to present, they are biased towards your beliefs, what you call knowledge, it becomes a faith based system - and if it is truly effective then it should not be 'faith based'.

You accuse me of 'looking in the wrong direction' - always pointing at others for being at fault, but this is a diversion, it is a way of trying to take the focus off the fact that you work on faith not evidence.

Haa - I only heal myself, I simply assist others in their healing - I have said this, but I have also said that there is no proper evidence that this all works, I think it does, but that does not constitute evidence. However I have also asked Paul what he does when he heals, he has not once, and not have you actually described the process of change that you do in the Now, All consciousness state, the actions that you take and how you make changes, this is consistently omitted - at least the reiki process is open to scrutiny.

"The good old scientific double blind placebo controlled tests. Scientific rubbish I'm afraid." So - now you think that double blind experimentation is scientific rubbish - how far will you go in order to try and bolster your un-provable claims in the face of a lack of evidence? This begins to sound more like a religion every time you defend it. However simply attacking others does not provide any kind of defence, it merely detracts and misleads.

The drug tests are used to prove the level of effectiveness as much as the fact whether they are effective at all, they are also designed to show what the level of placebo response is - this is well known and documented - no faith is needed, it is not a religion. If your system, which apparently has plenty of evidence, is effective it should be evident through proper testing, if it is just a faith system then it will show that up as well.

"If it did help, was it placebo? Possibly, but if placebo has made them better then it still helped, so there's nothing wrong in that." - I agree - but that means that the process described was not what made the change - it relies on faith in the healer, and that makes it a faith healing process or a religion. "but it certainly stacks up better than relying on the flaky pseudo factual stastistics of scientific testing." - and this is the point - it does not, clearly, by saying this you demonstrate a closed mind and one that will only see what is desired, it is a faith that must exclude any threat by denouncement or else its own deficiencies are shown up and it will be exposed.

"Science is personal belief too" - totally wrong, it is mandatory that others use the methods to test the claims in science, and this kind of peer review is essential. This kind of statement simply shows how closed your mind is to anything that does not support your system - it tries to make a pariah from those who question, and it is from fear of exposure.

You keep making claims and providing nothing to back it up, if I am living in the Now then I should be able to see what you do, that at least should consistent, I did not - I saw something different - and so it is my fault for closing my mind or some such.
" So, please tell me Chris where are you right now... are you in the present moment as you read this or are you in the past or the future? I'd really be interested to know." - I live in the moment of now but have connections to many people and past events - that is what makes me me. But even so - if I am living in the now, why do I see it differently to you? If we are both living in the same now then there should be no discrepancy.


"For others the marriage break up may be "all about" the child abuse issue and treating one will naturally treat the other too." By the usual magic process that is not defined yet - this is just wishes turned to claims that have no basis of proof. The whole system is awash with these.

"It's not about blame, and I'm sorry if you feel that way." - "Your mind on the other hand is choosing to prevent you from living in the Now" - "You're living in the Now too Chris but you're choosing not to be aware of it," - "You are still confusing knowledge with theory, I guess because you haven't tested the information to see it as knowledge yourself." - "but no matter where we point, you choose to look in the opposite direction and then say there is no evidence." - " but for some reason unbeknownst to us, you still choose to see it as an Elephant"
You see -this is your way of reacting to anyone who does not fall in with the belief you have - if they do not see what you demand they see they are wrong, they are choosing to take the path of falseness, it is they who are insincere for the religion must not be challenged. The high-priest knows what one must see - is this not a form of fundamentalism. " That is the description of the Now. If it's anything else then it's not the Now even if someone is labelling that something else as Now." And this underlines it - mandatory belief.

We do choose to murder, many have the death penalty, you vote for government that murders daily, and I'm not even going to mention abortion. You simply do it by proxy.

Suffering is a natural process, the process is what has changed these people not just the event. It was not the kidnapping that changed Terry Waite, it was the suffering that made him different. You choose to avoid suffering, you choose a life that is only self-serving and see suffering and pain as having no value, in doing this you close yourself off to natural processes, it is a closed mind policy because it does not fit with the religious rules of the now - self-serving is everything - all else must be discarded.

It does not matter that the flat-earthers stopped before they realised that their knowledge was wrong, knowledge is what we believe now, and your beliefs now are no more secure that theirs were. Just stand back and look at how insecure one person seeing something different has made your system.


Hi Paul,

" I should hope not, neither would I." - Paul - I saw you advocate and advise this on another thread about removing attunenments with a fabricated ritual, I saw that you made up a means of passing off a client with a problem by constructing a wish list of logic that got rid of them, I saw you dress it up in fine words that meant nothing. I have seen you say that clients can procrastinate in their own time, I have seen you say that you would not offer them a cup of tea and a chat, all I see is a self-serving system that serves itself and cares nothing for anyone that gets in the way, I see no love, no caring, no consideration, no compassion - just the self-serving god of self-serving actions. This is not what I think should be a foundation for a healing system. This is the system that you think we should all aspire to because you are a 'responsible and professional' healer - that all others should be excluded - this only demonstrates how self-serving attitudes can only ever be that - self-serving.
This is not something I necessarily associate with the Now or whatever - it seems to be linked in with your system.
You can claim this is judgemental of me, you can claim that it is my fault for not seeing what you think I should, you can claim that I am, once again, in the wrong, that I choose to see what I see - these are not things I have made up, the posts are there - in most cases you choose later to disclaim these things, but these are what you have said - yes they are in the past - but their reflection still shines on your system.
love
chris

Hi Daz

As we come here without an understanding of self and we have to create one out of what we are told we are, together with what we choose to create from within our own experiences, then I do no perceive suffering as remembering or forgetting aspects of self, but more the way we choose to create a self perception right now.
.

Hi Paul .

The question still remains - do we come here without an understanding of self (In your words) because we choose to forget what It Is that we are - or do we not have a choice . When a child comes of age where they start to function In this world by their own means and within their Individual mind-sets could they handle the truth of what they are within that moment . Could a child handle or could many for that matter accept that what they think they are - Is not what they are? and yet until they accept what they are (In my eyes) there will be an undercurrent of sufferings had because until there Is acceptance within the realization of what they are there will always be a feeling of separation on some level (and that contains suffering like a baby that’s separated from their mother) . .

Just another point to add here Is that there are many people that are not aware of that they are suffering . A caged bird may not be aware of their sufferings until the day of their release . An Individual In the same vain may not feel a suffering until they release themselves from a particular mind-set .

A child for example may not feel a separation from what they are because they feel the love of their mother . The childs awareness does not stretch beyond that love and completeness felt within that love and yet that kind of love In expression has only a minute proportion of oneness contained . ..

Does the child (or anyone) have a choice to realize what they are and dissolve the undercurrent of suffering . . ?

dazzle .

Hi Chris,

I'll answer your post but it's not going to be much different from what I've said before, because you are making the same points whilst seemingly not having read the previous responses that already answered them.

Hi Giles,
It is not the numbers that make the evidence, but the way in which it is done.

That's nonesense. Science could not test on an individual case, find the person benefits and then market that solution as something that has been proven. In scientific testing it's all about numbers, not just in the methematical proof, but in the statistical sense. Statistics are used by science to justify that something is more beneficial than something else (or nothing else) but statistics are not 100% accurate proof of something's efficacy.... but science and maths hold each others hand in their ability to prove for each other, whilst dismissing anything that doesn't meet the beliefs of their own church.

I agree that much more investigation needs to be done into healing therapies, but if it is to be proven simply claiming witness is not enough to provide evidence. If you choose to ignore the "scientists" and only believe in witness that is your business,

Your judgement preceeds you, for clearly you know nothing about me. I'm very much a scientist myself, but I choose not to dismiss something simply because science and maths can't "prove" it by it's doctrine's. Just because I "do" complementary therapies and other practices, doesn't mean that I dismiss science; I simply dismiss any notion that science is the one and only means of proving things, which is in itself a limiting belief of so many scientists.

but the point of evidence is to stop those who have no means to discriminate from being fooled - and treated in a fraudulent manner, especially where money changes hands, but even without that facet of the 'profession'.

Then you'd be better off targeting your desire to stop people being fooled and treated fraudulently towards pharmaceutical companies and the other scientifically 'proven' things that people are told will make their lives better, but year upon year have shown to not be effective or to cause worse suffering in the long term. To judge that complementary therapies are out to fool people whereas science isn't, appears to show a lack of understanding of both.

There is very little attempts by complimentary therapies to test the effectiveness of their therapies in a full manner, for many this is deliberate I believe, and that is because many would not show any benefits other than placebo effects. This makes it even more important for those that do work (and many do I believe) to show they are effective.

For many this is Deliberate? You are surely joking? How many therapists have the time, the means or the money to perform tests and gain evidence of sufficient statistical and scientific merit to justify the thing that they know for themselves works. If they were to invest in such tests, they wouldn't have time to do their therapies and help people. Do you really believe that many therapists have the ability to gather your scientific type of evidence but are deliberately choosing not to? That just sounds delusional.

Paul's system (and I think your equivalent) make claims, you claim there is plenty of evidence, but nothing apart from witness or your statements are presented. You said there was plenty of evidence - is this just isolated witness or practitioner promises or is there some?

What evidence do you want Chris? As I already said, if you want written paper records presented to you in a box showing efficacy through double blind placebo tests with control groups on high numbers of test cases and peer reviewed and independantly second tested, to give you proof to a "scientific" level, then you won't get it.

It is no use blaming me for some limitation - this is just misdirection - you said there is plenty of evidence -where is it?

You've asked where the evidence is, and you've been told, it's right there in front of you; but you simply choose to not see it and demand it must be in this box given format.

If there is none available other than personal witness of the practitioner than it merely makes it all look suspect - to keep blaming others of the inability to simply believe adds no credence to your system.

And as said before, it's NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM!!!! (thought I'd better highlight that because you seem to keep believing otherwise). Nobody has aked anybody else to "believe" in anything. The information has been presented to you, but you can only know that as fact for yourself if you were to test it yourself, yet you continually choose not to test it and then tell us we've not provided you with the knowledge. I'm sure I've said this many times before, but until you test something yourself, it will be just information and not proven knowledge, whether that's a complementary practice or a scientific experiment. I don't have to believe in the power of living in the Now, there's nothing there to believe. I experience living in the Now and I know it to exist. YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED HOW YOU MANAGE TO LIVE IN THE PAST OR FUTURE AND NOT IN THE NOW (thought I'd highlight that one too as you seem to have yet again overlooked our questions to you :))

We are asked only to take your word, or listen to someone who felt benefit, but these are what you wish to present, they are biased towards your beliefs, what you call knowledge, it becomes a faith based system - and if it is truly effective then it should not be 'faith based'.

No, no, no, no and erm,.... no. I haven't asked you to take my word, as I don't do that. You asked questions, I gave information. YOU need to turn that information into factual knowledge by testing it for yourself, which is what I've said all along. That's not asking you to take my word for it, that's putting the scientific experiment in front of you and saying "there you go, see it for yourself". A science teacher at school doesn't just describe and experiement to the students and tell them they have to believe it, (s)he demonstrates the experiment and/or get's the students to do the experiment themselves, so that they can see the truth in it. Yet you still talk as if we should somehow impart the knowledge directly into your brain without you having to do the experiment yourself. If you keep believing that is the way to knowledge, you're going to be waiting a long time.

You accuse me of 'looking in the wrong direction' - always pointing at others for being at fault, but this is a diversion, it is a way of trying to take the focus off the fact that you work on faith not evidence.

You can believe what you like Chris. On the one hand you accept that I only answer you with truth (which is the truth) and then you tell me I'm trying to misdirect you. It seems you don't know what to believe, but trust me on this, if something is presented to me as information, I don't go on faith that it's true... I test it for myself, and if it doesn't stack up, I know it's not true, but if it does then it becomes truthful knowledge. If I just went on faith, then I'd believe in some God or other or spirits in another dimension. That's fine if others choose to believe those things, but I've seen no evidence to back up those claims, so they don't fit into my knowledge.

Haa - I only heal myself, I simply assist others in their healing - I have said this, but I have also said that there is no proper evidence that this all works, I think it does, but that does not constitute evidence. However I have also asked Paul what he does when he heals, he has not once, and not have you actually described the process of change that you do in the Now,

Ah, I see what it is you're after. You want an instruction manual.... ok.

Step 1. Let go of the minds ideas of the past
Step 2. Let go of the minds ideas of the future
Step 3. Be present and put focus on the needs of the present moment

If you do that, the healing will be natural.

You want more detail? Then you need to practice and study living in the Now and understand how the mind takes control of us rather than us control the mind. This isn't something I would say can be taught through words alone on a forum, and many of the teachings I've received through various different means have all supplied the information and instructed us that we should not take their word for it, but put it into practice for ourselves and then we will Know whether it is true or not.

All consciousness state, the actions that you take and how you make changes, this is consistently omitted - at least the reiki process is open to scrutiny.

So you're looking for something where we say... "we lay the client down on the couch, ask them to close their eyes, place our hands on their forehead, chant the mantra of "oompaloompa" and let the energy flow to their feet...." etc. No... living in the Now isn't like that.

"The good old scientific double blind placebo controlled tests. Scientific rubbish I'm afraid." So - now you think that double blind experimentation is scientific rubbish - how far will you go in order to try and bolster your un-provable claims in the face of a lack of evidence? This begins to sound more like a religion every time you defend it. However simply attacking others does not provide any kind of defence, it merely detracts and misleads.

As I said, I'm not attacking science, as I do science myself. But double blind experimentation only offers statistical "proof" of something, and can't possible take account of each individuals needs. Scientific methods and experiments are limited by the parameters of the experiment, and only in recent times has science started to perhaps accept (in some fields of science though it's a disputed corner) that the observer can influence the experiment. Science treats things in a dualistic manner whereas living in the Now or other complementary methods of healing, work holistically, looking at the greater picture. It's only you that is perceiving what I say as an attack of science, because you appear to have some great attachment to science itself, which seems to contradict your belief in past lives, spirits etc. It is curious why you vehemently insist upon proof from a scientific perspective rather than trusting yourself to test it and gaining your own knowledge.

The drug tests are used to prove the level of effectiveness as much as the fact whether they are effective at all, they are also designed to show what the level of placebo response is - this is well known and documented - no faith is needed, it is not a religion. If your system, which apparently has plenty of evidence, is effective it should be evident through proper testing, if it is just a faith system then it will show that up as well.

And yet there is no such thing as "proper testing". Science is a belief system just like anything. If such tests prove a "level" of effectiveness, then they are not proving 100% and show that there is lack of knoweldge in some aspects of what is being tested (science likes to call them "possible side effects"). Due to the bias of the field of science and the lack of it's ability to test things outside it's own knowledge, such "proper testing" is not suitable to test many things, including many complementary therapies. So, you can insist all you like, but you are unlikely to get any scientific evidence.

Does that make you happy now? There is no scientific evidence. But there again, there's no scientific tests or evidence to show my name is Giles, so perhaps I don't exists either.

"If it did help, was it placebo? Possibly, but if placebo has made them better then it still helped, so there's nothing wrong in that." - I agree - but that means that the process described was not what made the change - it relies on faith in the healer, and that makes it a faith healing process or a religion. "but it certainly stacks up better than relying on the flaky pseudo factual stastistics of scientific testing." - and this is the point - it does not, clearly, by saying this you demonstrate a closed mind and one that will only see what is desired, it is a faith that must exclude any threat by denouncement or else its own deficiencies are shown up and it will be exposed.

Only to the same extent as scientifically proven remedies. There's no proof one way or the other. So why keep looking for it?

"Science is personal belief too" - totally wrong, it is mandatory that others use the methods to test the claims in science, and this kind of peer review is essential. This kind of statement simply shows how closed your mind is to anything that does not support your system - it tries to make a pariah from those who question, and it is from fear of exposure.

Wow! You are in the UK aren't you Chris? Or certainly a non-communist country? Scientific proof is "mandatory" and "peer review is essential"? Amazing. Peer review is one of the most damaging things even in the scientific community. It's one of the key things that has held back and suppressed good scientific ideas. If we only went with things that were peer reviewed we wouldn't have the electric lighbulb; Einstein wouldn't have had his theories accepted; Quantum physics would have just been some crazy idea that was thrown out in the early 1900's etc. It takes those brave enough to keep testing things for themselves and ignoring the peers to make a difference. If you're living in a world where you only believe in peer reviewed experiments and it's mandatory to have scientific proof as your only proof, you're living in a very limited box and will never expand your own knowledge; you'll just be living in the back pocket of other people's beliefs and information.

You keep making claims and providing nothing to back it up, if I am living in the Now then I should be able to see what you do, that at least should consistent, I did not - I saw something different - and so it is my fault for closing my mind or some such.

As I said before, I didn't say this was your fault (sorry if you actually feel that you're being blamed, but I assure you you are not). What I would like is to understand why you see it as different. When I am in the Now, I am aware of everything and can perceive the past and future as they truly are, which is something created by the mind in the present moment, because they do not exist; yet yourself, you see that there is some sort of barrier which is shutting out the past and future as if they don't exist at all even conceptually created by the mind. So I know that there is some limitation in what you are seeing that makes you perceive the Now as something exclusive of certain things, whereas I perceive it as all inclusive. So perhaps if you could enlighten us as to how you went about living in the Now, what teachings you were putting into practice, etc. maybe we could understand what is going on better? :confused:

" So, please tell me Chris where are you right now... are you in the present moment as you read this or are you in the past or the future? I'd really be interested to know." - I live in the moment of now but have connections to many people and past events - that is what makes me me. But even so - if I am living in the now, why do I see it differently to you? If we are both living in the same now then there should be no discrepancy.

Ok, so that's a start to understanding what you are perceiving. So, let's just take one example of you having a connection in this present moment to a person from the past... If you are actually living in the Now, completely, then that person from the past is something in the memory, but not something that is right in front of you at this present moment. So, how are you connecting with this person from the past? Through the thoughts of the mind? Through emotions that are brought up about the person through these thoughts of the mind? It would seem, and I'm guessing here, that you know you are in the present moment, but your mind is drifting to these thoughts of the person from the past and those thoughts are stimulating your senses in the present moment. So, whilst your mind is drifting on these thoughts, your focus is on the thoughts and not what is going on right now around you in the present moment (i.e. you can't focus on thoughts of the past and be focused on your driving at the same time). So, this detracts from what may be needed in this present moment and you are not in fact living in the present moment, but instead living in the mind of the past. So what happens if you choose to let those thoughts of the person go and bring your focus to what is right in front of you at this present moment? It doesn't mean that the memory of the person will disappear. It doesn't mean that you no longer love that person. What it means is that you are living fully with mindfullness of what the needs are right Now, and if a need arises that means you need to recall the memory of the person from the past, then that need will be recognised. Living in the Now is about meeting the needs of the moment, which may include the past or the future if necessary (i.e. put some money in the bank for the future if there's no need to spend it now), but if we let our mind keep us in the past or future such that we miss the needs of the present moment, then this is not beneficial. In terms of trauma's or issues that people have, this means that they are typically putting their focus in the minds thoughts of the past and often projecting it into the future, whilst typically missing out completely on the needs of the moment, yet by recognising that the past is a memory and doesn't really exist (it can't because only the present moment exists right now) the choice can be made to come into the present moment and learn that the symptoms being created from living in the past memory meet no needs in the present moment, and are not beneficial. Now, you may say that the suffering is necessary, but is it meeting the needs of the present moment? Not if it detracts us from what needs to be done right here and now.

"For others the marriage break up may be "all about" the child abuse issue and treating one will naturally treat the other too." By the usual magic process that is not defined yet - this is just wishes turned to claims that have no basis of proof. The whole system is awash with these.

"It's not about blame, and I'm sorry if you feel that way." - "Your mind on the other hand is choosing to prevent you from living in the Now" - "You're living in the Now too Chris but you're choosing not to be aware of it," - "You are still confusing knowledge with theory, I guess because you haven't tested the information to see it as knowledge yourself." - "but no matter where we point, you choose to look in the opposite direction and then say there is no evidence." - " but for some reason unbeknownst to us, you still choose to see it as an Elephant"
You see -this is your way of reacting to anyone who does not fall in with the belief you have - if they do not see what you demand they see they are wrong, they are choosing to take the path of falseness, it is they who are insincere for the religion must not be challenged. The high-priest knows what one must see - is this not a form of fundamentalism. " That is the description of the Now. If it's anything else then it's not the Now even if someone is labelling that something else as Now." And this underlines it - mandatory belief.

I have demanded nothing. I have not said anyone is wrong. They are not choosing to take the path of falseness, but they can recognise that their mind is controlling them and choose to correct that. Your idea of it being a faith, religion, having a high priest etc... these are all concepts of ego that do not exist. Who is the high priest of living in the Now? If you had to label something as such, then it is the Self. There is no mandatory belief.

We do choose to murder, many have the death penalty, you vote for government that murders daily, and I'm not even going to mention abortion. You simply do it by proxy.

You assume I voted for this government. Please don't make assumptions. I would not support murder.

Suffering is a natural process, the process is what has changed these people not just the event. It was not the kidnapping that changed Terry Waite, it was the suffering that made him different. You choose to avoid suffering, you choose a life that is only self-serving and see suffering and pain as having no value, in doing this you close yourself off to natural processes, it is a closed mind policy because it does not fit with the religious rules of the now - self-serving is everything - all else must be discarded.

I have tested suffering and it served no purpose. I don't believe that Terry Waite learnt from his suffering, otherwise I doubt he would have survived. I believe by remaining focused on each moment as it arose, he lived to meet the needs of the moment. No doubt he had times when he did suffer as his mind was not present, but by recognising that it was not productive, he brought himself back to the present and what needed to be done to survive his situation. The best person to speak about it though would be himself, rather than either of us speculate when we don't truly know.

It does not matter that the flat-earthers stopped before they realised that their knowledge was wrong, knowledge is what we believe now, and your beliefs now are no more secure that theirs were. Just stand back and look at how insecure one person seeing something different has made your system.

This is where you are confusing knowledge with belief. Knowledge it testing of indivual pieces of information to it's completeness. Until the information is tested, if it is thought of as true, then that is belief.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Hi Chris

" I should hope not, neither would I." -

Paul - I saw you advocate and advise this on another thread about removing attunenments with a fabricated ritual, I saw that you made up a means of passing off a client with a problem by constructing a wish list of logic that got rid of them, I saw you dress it up in fine words that meant nothing.

As I said before, the proof of the pudding is always in the eating not the presentation, in this case the person who received the attunement requested that it be removed, once it was removed the situation reversed and the person reverted back to the state of being that they wanted to be.

Now that was a personal choice from the person who received the attunement which IMO a healer should not try and override because they think that is wrong.

Now if what I had done was to simply fabricated a ritual, then nothing would have happened and the person would have stayed exactly the same, which obviously did not happen as within a short space of time the person changed, but that is just a witnesses testimonial which in your opinion is unfounded, largely because you do not believe that it is possible to remove an attunement to a healing modality, so for you it obviously can't be true, therefor my advice which worked is of no value because I can't prove that it works outside of the evidence of what happened.

This appears to be the crux of your arguments, if something does not fit what you believe, then without testing the validity of whatever it is for yourself, it is without question dismissed and must be wrong.

I have seen you say that clients can procrastinate in their own time

That is true and I do say it to their faces, but not for the reasons that you would choose to believe and portray that I would, it is not because i do not care for them, it is quite the reverse, I would after a time say it to them so that they can realise what they are doing to themselves by continuing to procrastinate, they do not effect me with their procrastinating they are only effecting and restricting themselves, I would prefer to heal them of their problem of procrastination, but that is up to them, I can not heal them until they make a choice to be healed and agree to receive it.

I have seen you say that you would not offer them a cup of tea and a chat

Please point out the post where I am supposed to have said that, because that is not the way that I work at all, I might have said that people come for healing not tea and sympathy, but that is not the same thing as me not offering them a drink and a chat.

Please refrain from attempting to twist my words around in an attempt to make it appear as though I am someone who does not care for people, if I did not care for them, then I would not have taken the time and effort to learn how to help and heal them in the way that I have done.

all I see is a self-serving system that serves itself and cares nothing for anyone that gets in the way, I see no love, no caring, no consideration, no compassion - just the self-serving god of self-serving actions.

All you see, is exactly what you choose to see, based upon your understanding of yourself, which you express quite eloquently within your posts.

This is not what I think should be a foundation for a healing system. This is the system that you think we should all aspire to because you are a 'responsible and professional' healer - that all others should be excluded - this only demonstrates how self-serving attitudes can only ever be that - self-serving.

Yes, I believe that all healers should be able to understand the system that they work with and be able to apply it in a comprehensible, responsible and professional manner.

My healing system work on healing and personal development to heal people of their self created suffering, inner conflicts and turmoils, but the limited way that you describe the system of healing that you use, appears to work in some mystical way to help people to heal themselves through the perpetuation of their sufferings so that they can learn some form of lesson! The two approaches are literally quite opposite to each other and will result in completely different outcomes.

What you claim to do, does not make any sense to me, but if people believe that they have to suffer for whatever reason, then your way should appeal to them.

You can claim this is judgemental of me, you can claim that it is my fault for not seeing what you think I should, you can claim that I am, once again, in the wrong, that I choose to see what I see - these are not things I have made up, the posts are there - in most cases you choose later to disclaim these things, but these are what you have said - yes they are in the past - but their reflection still shines on your system.

No, I accept that this is just the way that you perceive things to be, based upon your understanding of yourself and your reality, that does not make it right or wrong, that is just the way that you have chosen to be and respond, if I say white and you interpret white as black because for you white always appears to be black, then for you it is black, for others it will be white, but when you say that I have said something is black when I have said it is white, then I will reiterate my statement in the hope that you will perhaps read it as I have wrote it.

You wrote in response to Giles

Paul's system (and I think your equivalent) make claims, you claim there is plenty of evidence, but nothing apart from witness or your statements are presented. You said there was plenty of evidence - is this just isolated witness or practitioner promises or is there some? It is no use blaming me for some limitation - this is just misdirection - you said there is plenty of evidence -where is it? If there is none available other than personal witness of the practitioner than it merely makes it all look suspect - to keep blaming others of the inability to simply believe adds no credence to your system. We are asked only to take your word, or listen to someone who felt benefit, but these are what you wish to present, they are biased towards your beliefs, what you call knowledge, it becomes a faith based system - and if it is truly effective then it should not be 'faith based'.

I feel that we have been very patient and answered all of your questions in an open and informative way, but obviously without giving you the depth of understanding which is available to people who come to learn our method, if people want it for free, then they are quite capable of putting in the time and hard work that is required to work it all out for themselves. 😉

I think that it is time for you to explain yourself, so please post up a full explanation of what you do and the substantiating evidence that proves that the way that you work, actually works and how your work has been tested and verified though clinical trials etc and is not something that you have just made up to trick people into prolonging their suffering, please do not post other peoples information about what they do, for that will only tell us what other people do and not have any bearing upon what you personally do.

Hi Daz

The question still remains - do we come here without an understanding of self (In your words) because we choose to forget what It Is that we are - or do we not have a choice .

We do not have any choice, our aspects of consciousness that are required to function here are created for this experience only.

When a child comes of age where they start to function In this world by their own means and within their Individual mind-sets could they handle the truth of what they are within that moment . Could a child handle or could many for that matter accept that what they think they are - Is not what they are? and yet until they accept what they are (In my eyes) there will be an undercurrent of sufferings had because until there Is acceptance within the realization of what they are there will always be a feeling of separation on some level (and that contains suffering like a baby that’s separated from their mother) . .

They are whatever they have decided they want to be, we are not preprogrammed to be anyone, we are completely free to choose our own identity and reality as we progress.

No there is no separation, only a perception of separation, I was brought up without parents, but there was no separation, just a sense of self within self, I did not suffer internally because I did not know my parents, I was aware that others had parents, but that did not make me suffer.

Just another point to add here Is that there are many people that are not aware of that they are suffering . A caged bird may not be aware of their sufferings until the day of their release . An Individual In the same vain may not feel a suffering until they release themselves from a particular mind-set .

That is a misconception, when people are suffering they know that they are suffering, it can be pushed to the side and people might attempt to ignore their suffering, but suffering is there to alert us to the underlying problem, so the more we try and ignore it the stronger it becomes.

A child for example may not feel a separation from what they are because they feel the love of their mother . The childs awareness does not stretch beyond that love and completeness felt within that love and yet that kind of love In expression has only a minute proportion of oneness contained . ..

Does the child (or anyone) have a choice to realize what they are and dissolve the undercurrent of suffering . . ?

I can only speak from my own personal experience here, as I did not receive any love from my mother, I did not miss it, you have to experience something before it becomes a part of your reality, it was only later in life that I learned to love self and others, my childhood did not contain it, so it was not relevant to my existence.

I know what you are saying, but to move beyond what we have created for ourselves, requires self acceptance, in the example that you are using, self acceptance is hard to find, primarily because you do not perceive acceptance from others, again you have to experience something before it becomes reality for you.

Try a different avenue for the answer to this one, for if we perceived that we were something more that what we are, then we would feel that we had missed out or been deprived and that would potentially create suffering, believe me you can have nothing and still suffer, it is not about attachments to people or things, it is a way of being.

No there is no separation, only a perception of separation, I was brought up without parents, but there was no separation, just a sense of self within self, I did not suffer internally because I did not know my parents, I was aware that others had parents, but that did not make me suffer.

Hi Paul . Thanks for your thoughts .

Exactly Paul . You was not lost / blinded within the emotional love from your parents . When an Individual feels loved and when an Individual feels safe within their own bubble of existence one does not contemplate the undercurrent of sufferings had on another level because they are not aware of It, they are blinded by their contented emotional and mental states . We have to go beyond our mental and emotional states to realize the suffering endured on a level that exists beyond our senses .

That is a misconception, when people are suffering they know that they are suffering, it can be pushed to the side and people might attempt to ignore their suffering, but suffering is there to alert us to the underlying problem, so the more we try and ignore it the stronger it becomes.

As explained above we can be unaware of sufferings on some level . If our senses cannot register sufferings that doesn’t mean that we are not suffering . The more one connects with the self the more one becomes aware . Self enquiry brings to the surface eventually all that needs to be realized . I realized that every thought / action made that doesn’t come from the self Is an expression that relates to a mind state that thinks that they are separated from what they really are . Even a plumber charging extra money for unnecessary work Is In expression from a separated mind set from what they are . Somewhere down the line that plumber Is suffering otherwise he/she would not be In expression In that way .

I can only speak from my own personal experience here, as I did not receive any love from my mother, I did not miss it, you have to experience something before it becomes a part of your reality, it was only later in life that I learned to love self and others, my childhood did not contain it, so it was not relevant to my existence.

I didn’t remember what my etheric body did last night when my physical body rested . I did not consciously remember when I returned to the physical plane where I’d been but what I did and where I was Is still a part of my reality although I was unaware of It . Whilst an Individual forgets what they are and forgets that there Is an undercurrent of sufferings had whilst functioning In a mind set that breaths life In to a feeling of separation then everything that we are not consciously aware of remains within our reality . . . Because on some level It has an effect on what we are conscious of right here right now . .

I know what you are saying, but to move beyond what we have created for ourselves, requires self acceptance, in the example that you are using, self acceptance is hard to find, primarily because you do not perceive acceptance from others, again you have to experience something before it becomes reality for you.

Ah Paul but we cannot move beyond what we are In creation of and In experience of for we are the creator . If an Individual connects beyond there current mind set In to another for example then that Is what we have created for ourselves .

We cannot function or operate outside of what we have created for ourselves . It’s like a computer game software, we cannot play on a level that has not as yet been created .

Try a different avenue for the answer to this one, for if we perceived that we were something more that what we are, then we would feel that we had missed out or been deprived and that would potentially create suffering, believe me you can have nothing and still suffer, it is not about attachments to people or things, it is a way of being.

Firstly one needs to realize what they are before one can ascertain If they perceiving to be something more than that . We cannot really be anything more than what we are right now for what we are Is present . I agree with your thoughts on acceptance and It’s Important to acknowledge that for sure .

But when the Inner currents draw you back In to the self It Is because they will not be contented with what they think they are . All whats happening Is that the Individual Is seeing through the material self and Is disillusioned with what they are In relation to that, so at that point there Is an understanding that there Is much more to what they are than meets the eye .

I understand that continually striving to be something that you are not can be counterproductive but perhaps necessary to experience . You cannot be something you are not but you can think that you are . You can think you have lost yourself but what you are Is still present .

So our mind needs to allow what we are to the fore . What’s stopping that from happening . Lets take the plumber as an example why does the plumber think and act the way that he does when he Is dishonest and overcharging his customers, Is he being himself?

(I love plumbers by the way) he hehe .

daz .

Hi Giles,
Well - an example of testing where numbers were not so important was the (eventual disproving) of the cold fusion process. I do agree that with drigs numbers are important though - we are each different so that this is often the only way to show or disprove effectiveness. In terms of proving stuff on an individual case within medicine I think that surgical procedures may fit the one chance only test.
Simply asking a lot of people their opinion will never prove fact from misconception, it merely provides an opinion poll.

I commented on your statement "the good old scientific double blind placebo controlled tests. Scientific rubbish I'm afraid" - despite your comments that you are a scientist I find this statement puzzling, for clearly double blind experiments do remove opinion from the measured outcome, they demonstrate repeatability without belief and show the false from the real (even if the real be placebo).

Yes- there are a lot of fraudulent drug trials, and many that are not conducted thoroughly enough. We all pay for government bodies to police this for us, but if we simply allowed the drug companies to make claims as some other groups do the situation would be much worse than it is now. I accept that complimentary therapies have little resources to do many of these tests and provide proof, and where that is stated the client at least has a clear view of that, but you stated that there is lots of proof, and then suggest that I look around for it, you place the burden of proof on me but I am not the one making the claim, it is just another diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the real lack of hard evidence. Blaming me for blindness does not solve anything - I did not make the claim.
The fact that many therapists do not have the resources to prove things does not allow open license to make any claims they want, that is just bordering on fraudulent.

Again you claim that I have not tested this - and yet that is not the case - I have and found something different to you, I see that you do not like that, I understand that it is upsetting but denial is not a reasonable response.
Take for instance the concept of barriers in the Now. You claim that the Now contains everything, "Everything includes the planet I live on and all the people who live on it, and all the solar system, stars, galaxies and the whole gawdam Universe and beyond into infinity. If you can find a barrier in that I'd like to know about it." - and so it contains me - and I see a barrier - so it contains a barrier - but against what you say you would not like to know about it. You claim that the Now contains the planets and the Sun, but what you witness as the sun is in the past (by 6 minutes and 19 seconds), and the galaxies that you witness may not even exist anymore but those you do are way in the past, yet the Now cannot contain the past you say (and if that is not a barrier what is?). You see you insist that if I do not conform to your view of the Now I am wrong, and that makes your insistence into a forced belief if I do not see what you see. No matter how you cut it this it relies on belief, and when conformance to a belief is insisted on it makes it into a faith and a religion. You said it is not a belief system, but like many of your statements it is designed to enforce conformance. You accuse of me not testing it because that is your only way of discrediting my experience of it, if it is as fixed as you would have people believe then I should not have seen barriers - but I did test it, and that is what I saw and still see.
By choosing to witness the sun and the galaxies you too live in the past, it is all around us and cannot be avoided, even by 6 minutes and 19 seconds. It is not so much a question of how we can experience the past, but how we cannot.
The entire premise of experiencing these things as if they are 'in the Now', this moment, simply makes it look as if you see the universe revolving around you, you are at the centre and so you define the Now and the contents of the Now. It is essential for your construction, and it does not work well if you are just a part of something bigger and if you revolve around it.

You say that you have 'put the scientific experiment in front of me' - and so I do not need to take your word for the result, yet when I test it, and do not see what you see you tell me I am wrong, that it is different, and that you have the correct view - that is asking me to believe that I am wrong, and you are right, and you have the only correct data from the experiment. If this was a scientific experiment demonstration it would be classed as a 'failure to demonstrate'.

Like you I believe that some things are what they are, I do not always have explicit proof, I believe healing works but cannot prove it beyond rolling out a few witnesses or giving my opinion. However I do not believe what I want, I make judgements about things to test them as best I can. You make it sound like I deliberately choose what top believe in order to achieve some goal, I do not. I tested the Now and saw something different, it is you who cannot choose to believe anything different to that which you are committed to, your views are unmovable and any deviation must be an error.

Thanks for the 1, 2, 3 of healing - I like it - it describes self-healing in the Now quite well, what it does not do is describe how Paul does the healing for the client, he explicitly states that it is not the client doing self healing but that he does the healing on them. This is what I have been trying to understand. As I said I worked with someone from the craft for a couple of years, I can see how it could be done, but this has not been explained.

I agree wholeheartedly with you about each of us needing what we need and not just a generic treatment, in a way that is the whole point of holistic therapies. This does not mean that generic treatments cannot be tested, it does not mean that no evidence is required of not only the benefits but also the lack of harm. The holistic market is full of stuff like 'the energy is intelligent' and there is not only no basis for this, but if it is just taken as read there is potential inadvertent harm from incorrect care taken. These statements are kust spouted without any evidence and do nothing to help the cause of holistic medicine.

No - simply saying that there is no scientific evidence does not make me happy, it leaves the whole holistic market open to people who would con those most in need, who seek only to raise themselves up at the expense of others, but worst of all it does nothing to support those therapies that do really work - and that is a great shame.
"There's no proof one way or the other. So why keep looking for it?" - no proof yet, but if we stop looking we will never find it. Perhaps it is this looking that makes people uncomfortable, it is not the chance that evidence may be found, but that the bogus may be exposed.

Peer review was exactly what let Einstein's theories be accepted, and the light bulb is a demostratable invention not a theory. Peer review is not the total answer, and there are many reasons to keep plugging on, but when reviewed the theories should stack up - the observations should be consistent. In this case they are not, and it is you that has closed your mind to the possibility that there may be more than you see, it is not me, for I have looked and observed what I have seen without any reason for bias. "What I would like is to understand why you see it as different." - then look instead of continually telling me I am not seeing what I should see. I trust you, I believe you do not fabricate things, that you believe what you say, but that does not mean that all you observe is all there is.

"not something that is right in front of you at this present moment" - the sun is not right in front of you at the present moment, it is a vision from the past, not corrupted or distorted, it is from the past. Time is only a dimension, if we look at a line from the right angle it becomes a point, the apparent loss of one dimension does not stop it being a line. It seems that you choose to apply logic to define why the past is not here, yet look at the past and claim it is the present.
The idea that we only choose what is self-serving in the present simply underlines the selfish nature of living in the Now, what I ask is self-serving about healing others?

"I don't believe that Terry Waite learnt from his suffering" - because that choice is what supports your argument. I believe otherwise, I believe it changed him. I'm sure that he managed one day at a time, from moment to moment, but the ordeal will have changed him.

Knowledge may be based on testing, but like the flat earthers further testing may change what we constitute as knowledge - however if we refuse to look and test simply from fear of change that is when the knowledge becomes akin to faith.

Hi Paul,
"Now if what I had done was to simply fabricated a ritual, then nothing would have happened" - what you did was fabricate a ritual, that is clear, whether it had any effect other than duping the client/student is not clear but nothing in the system of reiki supports it.
Your whole system is riddled with claims that have not stood up to scrutiny, anything that may support it is claimed no matter how outrageous, people are of no concern - for goodness sake our students are precious, and yet they are fobbed off with invented rituals simply to get rid of the problem they present, this was seen as not honest and that was a true view.
This is the example of self serving, of how you treat people - "So no, we do not provide people with tea and sympathy, platitudes or sticking plasters" (sic) - no you certainly do not, for they are just there to be used to bolster your system, a means to a self-serving end, and if some of the methods are bogus so what eh. You take what you wish to see as evidence without consideration that the student was conned, tricked into a fabricated process that was simply designed to get the teacher off the hook - they knew what was honest that was not what the student got. Sleight of hand and smoke and mirrors. This is the basis of your system, it has some good solid foundations but the fabrication you apply on top has no basis of fact, it is window dressing to support the self-serving inventor. I choose to look under the cover and what I see is certainly self-serving and fabricated.
love
chris

Hi Daz

Exactly Paul . You was not lost / blinded within the emotional love from your parents . When an Individual feels loved and when an Individual feels safe within their own bubble of existence one does not contemplate the undercurrent of sufferings had on another level because they are not aware of It, they are blinded by their contented emotional and mental states . We have to go beyond our mental and emotional states to realize the suffering endured on a level that exists beyond our senses .

That was the reality that I had chosen to experience, so no there was not a sense of loss or suffering, what there was was a lot of internal misunderstanding, we learn from the people that we interact with, when you have little interaction with others and cannot observe the relationships between people, then there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about who and what you are and how to interact with others.

As for emotional and mental states, confusion is a mental state of incomprehension which causes an emotional response of bewilderment, but if someone was to be brought up completely by a robot, then would they sense suffering at the loss of love in their environment? I don't think so, we can only suffer something that is not there by going into a woe is me state of being and perceiving ourselves as missing out when we have personally experienced something, otherwise it simply does not exist within our reality.

As explained above we can be unaware of sufferings on some level . If our senses cannot register sufferings that doesn’t mean that we are not suffering . The more one connects with the self the more one becomes aware . Self enquiry brings to the surface eventually all that needs to be realized . I realized that every thought / action made that doesn’t come from the self Is an expression that relates to a mind state that thinks that they are separated from what they really are . Even a plumber charging extra money for unnecessary work Is In expression from a separated mind set from what they are . Somewhere down the line that plumber Is suffering otherwise he/she would not be In expression In that way .

How can our senses not realise that we are suffering? If you burn yourself then unless the nerve impulses are not working to relay the pain, then we know that we have burnt ourselves, if we are experiencing mental anguish, then it is obvious to us, it is not something that can be hidden, every thought and action comes from self, even if we get too wrapped up in things to stop and take stock of self, it is still self that is functioning within all aspects of self.

I do not think that people perceive themselves as being separate from self, but they are often not aware that there is more to them than their thinking mind, which is what people tend to be aware of, so we cannot believe in separateness of self until we have experienced the wholeness of self and then it would be too late as we are complete so there is never any division.

I didn’t remember what my etheric body did last night when my physical body rested . I did not consciously remember when I returned to the physical plane where I’d been but what I did and where I was Is still a part of my reality although I was unaware of It . Whilst an Individual forgets what they are and forgets that there Is an undercurrent of sufferings had whilst functioning In a mind set that breaths life In to a feeling of separation then everything that we are not consciously aware of remains within our reality . . . Because on some level It has an effect on what we are conscious of right here right now . .

Why do you think that you would do anything with any level of your consciousness without you being aware of it? In this reality we only do what we decide to do, if you want to go astral travelling, then you have to take your everyday consciousness with you or it does not happen, you are perceiving separation within the fullness of self which is not possible, I think you need to go back to the drawing board and reevaluate your understanding of oneness, there is no divisions within self unless we choose to create a perception of it.

But when the Inner currents draw you back In to the self It Is because they will not be contented with what they think they are . All whats happening Is that the Individual Is seeing through the material self and Is disillusioned with what they are In relation to that, so at that point there Is an understanding that there Is much more to what they are than meets the eye

I think that discontentment comes out of not allowing ourselves to just be and experience the moment as it unfolds.

if someone was to be brought up completely by a robot, then would they sense suffering at the loss of love in their environment? I don't think so

They might not sense suffering at the loss of love, but neither would they know what love was.

I haven't read every word in this thread as so many of the posts are essays, but there doesn't seem to be much mention of love. A lot of it comes across as advice for robots.

Hi Chris

Now if what I had done was to simply fabricated a ritual, then nothing would have happened

- what you did was fabricate a ritual, that is clear, whether it had any effect other than duping the client/student is not clear but nothing in the system of reiki supports it.

No, just because there is nothing within your Reiki manual which supports the instructions that I put up, that does not invalidate what I have said, it is one thing reading a manual with a few simple instructions to start to make use of the modality and another thing understanding a healing modality, the manual does not describe the process of creation of the Reiki modality, it does not tell you how the symbols were empowered, but it was created and the symbols were empowered none the less irrespective of the fact that you do not understand how it was done.

Please remember that just because you do not understand how to do something yourself, does not make it impossible for someone else to do it, your personal limitations are your own and have no bearing upon what I or anyone else can do whatsoever.

Your whole system is riddled with claims that have not stood up to scrutiny, anything that may support it is claimed no matter how outrageous, people are of no concern - for goodness sake our students are precious, and yet they are fobbed off with invented rituals simply to get rid of the problem they present, this was seen as not honest and that was a true view.
This is the example of self serving, of how you treat people - "So no, we do not provide people with tea and sympathy, platitudes or sticking plasters" (sic) - no you certainly do not, for they are just there to be used to bolster your system, a means to a self-serving end, and if some of the methods are bogus so what eh. You take what you wish to see as evidence without consideration that the student was conned, tricked into a fabricated process that was simply designed to get the teacher off the hook - they knew what was honest that was not what the student got. Sleight of hand and smoke and mirrors. This is the basis of your system, it has some good solid foundations but the fabrication you apply on top has no basis of fact, it is window dressing to support the self-serving inventor. I choose to look under the cover and what I see is certainly self-serving and fabricated.

As you have not tried my healing modality to asses if it is a valid form of healing or not, you simply do not know what you are talking about, your thoughts are just a judgement based upon your own misunderstandings of healing through suffering, so are nothing more than your own opinion based upon something you know absolutely nothing about.

I am still awaiting your response to my earlier question about what you do:

please post up a full explanation of what you do and the substantiating evidence that proves that the way that you work, actually works and how your work has been tested and verified though clinical trials etc and is not something that you have just made up to trick people into prolonging their suffering, please do not post other peoples information about what they do, for that will only tell us what other people do and not have any bearing upon what you personally do.

That was the reality that I had chosen to experience, so no there was not a sense of loss or suffering, what there was was a lot of internal misunderstanding, we learn from the people that we interact with, when you have little interaction with others and cannot observe the relationships between people, then there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about who and what you are and how to interact with others.

Hi Paul .

Yes I agree that Is what you chose to experience but that doesn’t dismiss that until an Individual Is In full expression of the self that there Isn’t a deep undercurrent of sufferings had . Like I mentioned previously a bird In a cage can be as chirpy as he or she likes but until the bird Is released from the cage and can experience It’s full expression the bird will then (and only then) realize that he/she suffering on some level all along . So yes you can be experiencing suffering and not be consciously aware of It . Self realization brings that realization home .

An Individual that Is not In full expression of the self or what they are within mind Is suffering . They are just not aware of that sufferings . . Sure there Is an element of someone or the bird accepting a restricted expression but It doesn’t change that restricted expression brings with it an element of suffering .

As for emotional and mental states, confusion is a mental state of incomprehension which causes an emotional response of bewilderment, but if someone was to be brought up completely by a robot, then would they sense suffering at the loss of love in their environment? I don't think so, we can only suffer something that is not there by going into a woe is me state of being and perceiving ourselves as missing out when we have personally experienced something, otherwise it simply does not exist within our reality.

You have to be totally aware of your reality In order to know If something exists within It . Being brought up by a loveless robot and hence not missing love are all measured by our senses, the sufferings I speak of are beyond our senses, you have to detach from the mental and emotional fields If you want to realize the self . The self can only expresses “It’s self” via the mental and emotional planes . The self can exist where there Is no thought or emotion, It Is the thought and the emotion when the self Is attached to them that does Indeed restricts the self’s true expression .

Many people are an expression of emotion rather than an expression of the self . Don’t get caught up In the emotion and the self will be free to express .

How can our senses not realise that we are suffering? If you burn yourself then unless the nerve impulses are not working to relay the pain, then we know that we have burnt ourselves, if we are experiencing mental anguish, then it is obvious to us, it is not something that can be hidden, every thought and action comes from self, even if we get too wrapped up in things to stop and take stock of self, it is still self that is functioning within all aspects of self.

The senses are limited . The self Is not . We can only use our senses to a degree . What we are comes from beyond sense so how can what we In reference to sufferings had on that level be sensed by our senses .

We know that even on a basic level our ears and eyes can only pick up on a certain frequency band so even with that In mind It’s not difficult to believe that on some level our senses let us down through limitations .

I do not think that people perceive themselves as being separate from self, but they are often not aware that there is more to them than their thinking mind, which is what people tend to be aware of, so we cannot believe in separateness of self until we have experienced the wholeness of self and then it would be too late as we are complete so there is never any division.

I think people need to know the self In order to establish if they have the perception as to whether they are separate from It . I agree that they tend to think there Is more to them than what the ordinary mind lets them know .

The journey that one makes to realize the self Is one our main lifes purposes, of course the realization brings home the understanding that what we are “Is present” but without the journey they will never know that and with that In mind It would never be to late to realize that . Some people never do .

Why do you think that you would do anything with any level of your consciousness without you being aware of it? In this reality we only do what we decide to do, if you want to go astral travelling, then you have to take your everyday consciousness with you or it does not happen, you are perceiving separation within the fullness of self which is not possible, I think you need to go back to the drawing board and reevaluate your understanding of oneness, there is no divisions within self unless we choose to create a perception of it.

My point being Paul Is that (you/we) are not always aware/conscious of all of what’s contained within our reality . My understandings on this are fine . Some days I will be conscious of OBE’s and sometimes I am not aware . You mentioned that you cannot not be aware of sufferings and yet we cannot even be consciously aware of what we did last night when our bodies rested . Do you get my meaning .

"Are you conscious Paul (right now) of where your spirit body went last night"?

On some level we are conscious of what we did and of what we are but at times we forget - perhaps we choose to forget for whatever reason but just because we are not conscious right here right now of things Including sufferings on a deep level doesn’t mean that they are not a part of our reality . .

daz .

They might not sense suffering at the loss of love, but neither would they know what love was.

I would say that they wouldn't know what love through attachment is, though that wouldn't necessary be a bad thing, as that could prevent the judgement that causes us to have love through attachment and miss the love that exists in everything. Comparative love is not true love.

I haven't read every word in this thread as so many of the posts are essays, but there doesn't seem to be much mention of love. A lot of it comes across as advice for robots.

You don't need to read them all, a lot are just repeating the same things in different ways. I think you can get the gist from just reading a few. There was certainly mention of love and compassion along the way, but that wasn't the main points of the posts being made. 😉

I commented on your statement "the good old scientific double blind placebo controlled tests. Scientific rubbish I'm afraid" - despite your comments that you are a scientist I find this statement puzzling, for clearly double blind experiments do remove opinion from the measured outcome, they demonstrate repeatability without belief and show the false from the real (even if the real be placebo).

They appear to remove opinion, but they don't account for all factors that are taking part in the experiment, such as the observer etc. It all fine removing stuff, but it's not including things that do effect the experiment, and that makes the test invalid, scientifically speaking. Science itself is realizing this with it's theories around quantum physics etc.

Yes- there are a lot of fraudulent drug trials

The fact that many therapists do not have the resources to prove things does not allow open license to make any claims they want, that is just bordering on fraudulent.

And my point was, regardless of how it's policed, it doesn't stop people making fraudulent claims whether they're therapists or scientists, so we can't put science on a pedestal and say that it's somehow better than others.

Again you claim that I have not tested this - and yet that is not the case - I have and found something different to you, I see that you do not like that, I understand that it is upsetting but denial is not a reasonable response.

I'm not upset and it's not my concern whether you do understand or not so it's not a case that I don't like it at all. You have asked questions and we have done what we can to explain and answer your questions. We have done the most we can do at this present time.

Take for instance the concept of barriers in the Now. You claim that the Now contains everything, "Everything includes the planet I live on and all the people who live on it, and all the solar system, stars, galaxies and the whole gawdam Universe and beyond into infinity. If you can find a barrier in that I'd like to know about it." - and so it contains me - and I see a barrier - so it contains a barrier - but against what you say you would not like to know about it. You claim that the Now contains the planets and the Sun, but what you witness as the sun is in the past (by 6 minutes and 19 seconds),

As an average time, though it varies slightly.
However you miss the point. The Now does contain the Sun, as I see it Now, which is the light that hits my eyes (let's not get pedantic and talk about the nanoseconds it takes for the neurons to fire and my perception to register it). So the Sun as I see it Now is what is hitting my eyes. Whether the Sun actually exists 6 minutes 19 seconds from Now is not something to concern myself with, as it's not what is here and Now. In the Now, there is whatever is in front of me. The light of the Sun may have started it's journey from the Sun 6 odd minutes ago, but as I see it, that is the light that exists right here and Now, and I have no need to try and focus on the light that may or may not reach me in the future. So, I'm afraid your example of using distant objects to try and prove the past exists in the Now is somewhat flawed.

and the galaxies that you witness may not even exist anymore but those you do are way in the past, yet the Now cannot contain the past you say (and if that is not a barrier what is?).

Forgive me, but I actually said the Now does contain the past as it exists in the Now, but cannot contain the past as it was when it was an event/action at that point in the past.

Now the above two responses may seem contradictory, but they are not, because the confusion lies in the distinction between the past event, as it was at the time it happened, and the past event as it has changed to be a part of the Now. The past of the Now is a conceptual corruption of the past that happened, it can never be the past as it was. (I'll go no further as I've detailed this before)

By choosing to witness the sun and the galaxies you too live in the past,

Nope, it's defintely whatever is perceived right here and Now.

You say that you have 'put the scientific experiment in front of me' - and so I do not need to take your word for the result, yet when I test it, and do not see what you see you tell me I am wrong, that it is different, and that you have the correct view - that is asking me to believe that I am wrong, and you are right, and you have the only correct data from the experiment. If this was a scientific experiment demonstration it would be classed as a 'failure to demonstrate'.

Well it's a good job it's not a scientific experiment, cos it doesn't fit in the scientific box. I did ask you to explain to me about your barriers so I could understand and perhaps get at where you are coming from, and I think the above differentiation between your perception of the past in the now and the past as it was, is where the confusion lies.

No - simply saying that there is no scientific evidence does not make me happy, it leaves the whole holistic market open to people who would con those most in need

You'll never get rid of those who want to con, whether their in the holistic market or the scientific market. Why differentiate unless you are scientifically biased.

Science is wonderful as a tool, but to rely on it wholeheartedly as the ultimate proving of the universe is, from my experience, foolish.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

I would say that they wouldn't know what love through attachment is, though that wouldn't necessary be a bad thing, as that could prevent the judgement that causes us to have love through attachment and miss the love that exists in everything. Comparative love is not true love.

I didn't mention 'love through attachment' here. To not experience any love might be a good thing?

My problem with this thread is that it doesn't seem to have much to do with life as most of us live it, it's all academic. We can 'choose not to allow suffering to be part of our reality'? That's the 'pull yourself together' school of healing.

You don't need to read them all, a lot are just repeating the same things in different ways.

I noticed. That's why I didn't read them. 🙂

I think you can get the gist from just reading a few. There was certainly mention of love and compassion along the way, but that wasn't the main points of the posts being made. 😉

The end of suffering is through Love, so I thought it might have been the main point. 😉

I didn't mention 'love through attachment' here.

It was sort of implied by what you said. 😉

To not experience any love might be a good thing?

To not experience judgemental love might be a good thing, certainly.

My problem with this thread is that it doesn't seem to have much to do with life as most of us live it, it's all academic.

If we all lived life as most people lived it, then the world would be a dull place and full of many of the things that cause all the issues in life. If we did that, then what would be the point of even bothering with complementary therapies or even with love. It (living in the Now) is not just something that is academic, but something that many people choose to follow and find great benefit from. Just because many people aren't aware of the benefits or choose not to live in the present moment doesn't mean that we should all just say feck it and be like that. It would seem odd to say that the thread is just academic when there are people discussing things here who have chosen to try and live in the present moment.... that's certainly not academic, but is very real. The only thing academic is the attempt to describe and explain the concepts to others, but surely that's the point of such a discussion, otherwise why do we bother to use the forums.

We can 'choose not to allow suffering to be part of our reality'? That's the 'pull yourself together' school of healing.

Not at all, it was already mentioned that it's not just something you can do without practice. Having someone to assist in that practice and support the practice, isn't just saying 'pull yourself together' but is about helping a person to recognise what is really there Now and what their mind is creating that is causing their issues. Teaching a person how they can heal themselves is anything but just telling them to pull themselves together. That would just be lacking compassion and is known to be unproductive.

I noticed. That's why I didn't read them. 🙂
The end of suffering is through Love, so I thought it might have been the main point. 😉

Well, that's a good viewpoint to have, so please expand... how does love end suffering, and what sort of love are we talking about that does end the suffering? Also, do you consider that suffering is necessary or is it something that can be recognised as unnecessary and let go (whether that's through love or some other means)?

All Love and Reiki Hugs

I didn't mention 'love through attachment' here.

It was sort of implied by what you said. 😉

To not experience any love might be a good thing?

To not experience judgemental love might be a good thing, certainly.

I was originally referring to a mother's love for her child. Why do you equate that with judgemental love? I consider it to be selfless.

If we all lived life as most people lived it, then the world would be a dull place and full of many of the things that cause all the issues in life...Just because many choose not to live in the present moment doesn't mean that we should all just say feck it... Having someone to assist in that practice and support the practice, isn't just saying 'pull yourself together' but is about helping a person to recognise what is really there Now and what their mind is creating that is causing their issues.

I was thinking of how this discussion would come across to the many millions of people around the world who have no choice but live in the present moment suffering violence, disease and starvation. How many of them would thank you for telling them that their mind is causing their issues?

Well, that's a good viewpoint to have, so please expand... how does love end suffering, and what sort of love are we talking about that does end the suffering? Also, do you consider that suffering is necessary or is it something that can be recognised as unnecessary and let go (whether that's through love or some other means)?

I think I answered both those questions in post #147, Giles.

By taking part in the drama we gradually learn to let go of the props, and suffering, and eventually remember that we ourselves are the silent witness. The Self, the silent witness, is Love, and is always accessible.

...and you said I was spot on. More details can be found in the New Testament and the Bhagavad Gita.

I was originally referring to a mother's love for her child. Why do you equate that with judgemental love? I consider it to be selfless.

I was referring to the part where you said in reply to Paul...

Originally Posted by Paul Crick [url][/url]
if someone was to be brought up completely by a robot, then would they sense suffering at the loss of love in their environment? I don't think so

They might not sense suffering at the loss of love, but neither would they know what love was.

This is referring, I believe, to the person who was brought up by the robot, not the mother? I believe you are correct that they would not suffer a sense of loss of love, and in a sense I believe you are also correct that they would not know what love was, but that is because they have not had it instilled into them that judgemental love through ego, so in a sense they could experience love for everything, and because it is for everything they do not understand the concept of not-love and therefore what they experience has no label, as it isn't compared to anything else. It would be a love of Oneness, rather than the dualistic love. It's that dualistic love I was referring to as the love through attachment. So, rather than saying they would not know what love was, ... yes... they wouldn't be able to understand love in a way they could explain it, but they could certainly experience the love in everything.... so, I guess I'm saying they would know love becuase they experience it, but not know how to differentiate between anything else in order to describe what they experience. Hope that clarifies... 😀

I was thinking of how this discussion would come across to the many millions of people around the world who have no choice but live in the present moment suffering violence, disease and starvation. How many of them would thank you for telling them that their mind is causing their issues?

And I think that's where our understanding of suffering is different. I would say that they are experiencing those issues in the present moment, and suffering is something that is created in their minds after the events, not as it happens. To me, the word "suffering" is different from "experiencing". Suffering is what people feel when they consider the past in their minds (that may only be a second in the past, but it is still the past and not the present). What they are experiencing in the present moment, they are experiencing and if they act on what is there right Now, to the best of their ability, then that is the best they can do. It's wrong to imply that the mind is causing their experience by labelling the experience as suffering.

I think I answered both those questions in post #147, Giles....and you said I was spot on. More details can be found in the New Testament and the Bhagavad Gita.

Ah, yes you did, my apologies. 🙂

All Love and Reiki Hugs

This is referring, I believe, to the person who was brought up by the robot, not the mother? I believe you are correct that they would not suffer a sense of loss of love, and in a sense I believe you are also correct that they would not know what love was, but that is because they have not had it instilled into them that judgemental love through ego, so in a sense they could experience love for everything, and because it is for everything they do not understand the concept of not-love and therefore what they experience has no label, as it isn't compared to anything else. It would be a love of Oneness, rather than the dualistic love. It's that dualistic love I was referring to as the love through attachment. So, rather than saying they would not know what love was, ... yes... they wouldn't be able to understand love in a way they could explain it, but they could certainly experience the love in everything.... so, I guess I'm saying they would know love becuase they experience it, but not know how to differentiate between anything else in order to describe what they experience. Hope that clarifies... 😀

:confused: Clarifies? Not really. Too many words, and not necessarily in the right order? I'm not really sure what any of this means.

suffering is something that is created in their minds after the events, not as it happens. To me, the word "suffering" is different from "experiencing". Suffering is what people feel when they consider the past in their minds (that may only be a second in the past, but it is still the past and not the present)

Suffering is only experienced in hindsight? I don't think so. Ask a starving child.

Hi Barafundle

There is a distinct difference between experiencing suffering which is happening in the now, as in falling of a ladder right now and breaking a leg or burning ourselves on the stove as we cook something or as you say not having the necessary resources at hand right now to sustain our existences so we are experiencing hunger, but that is different to the root cause of suffering which is what we are trying to establish within this discussion.

Many people believe that love is the root cause of suffering, but is love really the root cause of suffering or is it the inner perceptions of rejection when someone who we love rejects us, or the perception of the loss of love when someone we love dies, or what about when someone who professes to love us unconditionally, then judges us based upon our actions which they do not understand or condone!

What we are saying is that if we claim that something which happened years ago is somehow moving forward in real time to directly effect us right now, then we are using judgements of a past experience to avoid taking responsibility for the suffering which we are currently creating within our existence right now, in this situation we are the root cause of our suffering, we need to change ourself to rectify the situation, because we can't change something which has happened in the past and no longer exists outside of our memories.

Many people believe that love is the root cause of suffering, but is love really the root cause of suffering or is it the inner perceptions of rejection when someone who we love rejects us

Has anyone here said that love is the root cause of suffering? I've said the opposite. I think you are referring to material attachment and physical desire.

What we are saying is that if we claim that something which happened years ago is somehow moving forward in real time to directly effect us right now, then we are using judgements of a past experience to avoid taking responsibility for the suffering which we are currently creating within our existence right now

You make it seem like a conscious act; 'we make judgements'. Much of what affects us in the past, and indeed in the present, affects us on a subconscious level.

Unless one has attained a state of spiritual Self realisation, the destruction of your home and loss of loved ones will cause distress. If one has attained that Self realisation then you understand the nature of existence and consequently do not suffer.

I don't think any of us posting here have attained that latter state.;)

Hi Paul,
It is not about whether the ritual you contrived is effective or not, you have no evidence that it works and I have none that it does not work. It is about the manner and the reason that it is fabricated. This is the basis of all you do - make it up as you go along in order to bolster the healer, the client has no power in this process and is given no respect or love. The process elevates itself above any concern for others and is only self-serving - even to the point of allowing no procrastination and refusing to treat them like needful and deserving individuals.
I have looked at the kind of thing you claim to do, I see that I have no limitations if I choose to behave like you, by discarding any respect and concern for others and seeking only to create those things that serve me. I reject it because it is not respectful and loving to others, and it is not respectful to myself - if there is a limitation within me it is one I choose because I see it as spiritually dishonest and unethical.
I have said many times that I regard the client as the most important person in the process, you see them apparently as 'the most important thing in the room' (sic). This I think underlines the difference between us clearly.

You say that because I have not tried your modality I do not know what I am talking about - a very judgemental and dismissive view, but I am able to see whether the descriptions you have given treat the clients with respect, I am able to see that the system is focussed on being self-serving and that it appears to have no basis of love and compassion. This alone, never mind whether it is effective or not, and as an aside this is nothing to do with the concept and actuality of the 'Now', for that is a separate issue. I suspect that you are using occult means to change people, (you still will not describe how you do the healing and yet you definitely should be informing the client about how you do this), and this is why you claim to be healing them, and they do none of the healing - either that or you are doing nothing and claiming their healing (self-healing) in error.

I have told you a number of times -I am a simple reiki healer, and the reiki modality is well documented and the issues of proving its effectiveness open to scrutiny. Your insults of trying to say that I choose to prolong peoples suffering will not be effective, they choose for themselves, I open the opportunity to healing for them, I help however I can when they are ready to go through - I do it with love and compassion, I do it with respect for them - they are the most important person in the process.


Hi Giles,
I could not agree more about the drug trials, policing does not take the place of honesty and it seems that self-serving greed will always temp those who should know better to fabricate results and descriptions in order to bolster their own position - the loser is always the patient. We do need something and I think trials are the best on offer, for nothing and no control will be worse allowing the hoaxers and fraudulent, those who have no respect for others open license, but the trials are proving to be not the whole answer and there is a long way to go.

The concept that the Now contains everything - and so it contains me, and I see barriers, so it either contains barriers or it contains misconceptions and illusions, you did not address. If what I see in the Now cannot be trusted than what can? If I am within the now (within supposing there is a not within as you point out already makes some assumptions) then apart from corrupted memories what is evident should be accurate and truthful, or is this another bit of logic that cannot apply in the Now? What if suffering in the now is an illusion?


You now say that the Now contains the past "Forgive me, but I actually said the Now does contain the past as it exists in the Now, but cannot contain the past as it was when it was an event/action at that point in the past." But up until now you have said that the past does not exist - how can something contain something that does not exist? If you mean the corrupt memories then they are not the past, they are only memories - you have said this. So what kind of past is it in the now if it is not a corrupt memory that is not the past, and the past does not exist? I thought I was getting this but this just makes it all confused again. "I think the above differentiation between your perception of the past in the now and the past as it was, is where the confusion lies." - yes - this is the confusion. How can a different past exist in the now that is not a corrupt memory for the past does not exist.

"What is in the present moment is a product of what has been in the past, but what was in the past no longer exists.
It's all perfectly logical, that the past no longer exists
Issues don't exist in the past as the past does not exist,
What we believe to be the past in the present moment, is only a twisted perception of something in the present that we call the past
whatever has happen within the past is of no importance to what is happening to someone in the present, once an event has been experienced it is nothing more than a memory of a past event."

Now my point about the sun I think is relevant - you have said that the Now does not include the past, and yet the Sun that you see is not the Sun in the present - it is minutes old, and the galaxy any number of years old, so what you are seeing, and claiming as part of the Now is actually not in the Now, it is the equivalent of 'corrupt memories'. Yes - the sun as you see it now is what hits your eyes, but corrupt memories are what hit your brain, there is no difference, each is hitting nerve inputs to your perception - the light exists here and now, as do the memories. You have no need to focus on the light that may hit your eyes later in the now perhaps, but the object that you are perceiving is not in the now, it is just a corrupt memory. This reduces your sphere of actual perception down to only local events, only the light from the sun can be included, not the sun, just as only the events happening now can be included, not corrupt memories from the past.


"Nope, it's defintely whatever is perceived right here and Now." - so actually your now that contains galaxies that no longer exist is a corrupt view and is only a personal local view that has no validity - the view itself is corrupt and that throws into doubt all perceptions of the Now.

" You'll never get rid of those who want to con, whether their in the holistic market or the scientific market." - but that does not mean that we should not do the best we can, it does not mean that we should always try to differentiate, and it certainly does not mean that we should believe whatever anyone tells us it the truth (even if it is the truth as they see it). It is as important that we unearth the truthful as it is that we expose the con men, perhaps more so (I think so but that is an opinion).

"Science is wonderful as a tool, but to rely on it wholeheartedly as the ultimate proving of the universe is, from my xperience,
foolish." - yes I agree, but it is the most relevant of all the tools we have.

love
chris

Hi Barafundle

Has anyone here said that love is the root cause of suffering? I've said the opposite. I think you are referring to material attachment and physical desire.

No, I was talking generally, if we ask most people what they perceive is the biggest contributer to the main suffering that they have encountered in their existence, then the answers usually revolves around love. 🙂

You make it seem like a conscious act; 'we make judgements'. Much of what affects us in the past, and indeed in the present, affects us on a subconscious level.

Yes we do have a choice in the way we choose to respond to things, our memory consciousness or subconsciousness is still ours to function with, ignorance of how we function is not a valid excuse for what we choose to do to ourselves, we cannot pass on our responsibility to self onto anyone else for what we choose to create within ourselves. 🙂

Unless one has attained a state of spiritual Self realisation, the destruction of your home and loss of loved ones will cause distress. If one has attained that Self realisation then you understand the nature of existence and consequently do not suffer.

I don't think any of us posting here have attained that latter state.;)

I can't really comment on spiritual development because I do not use it, but I can comment on the personal development that I do utilise, it gives people the conceptual understanding that they require to understand how they function with their various aspects of consciousness which they use to create their realities, that understanding empowers them to take personal responsibility for their own thoughts and beliefs which puts the resulting actions or manifestations under their control, this empowers them to make personal choices as to if they wish to react to things or not and if so, how do they choose to react.

No, I was talking generally, if we ask most people what they perceive is the biggest contributer to the main suffering that they have encountered in their existence, then the answers usually revolves around love. 🙂

This would make more sense if you said "the answers usually revolve around lack of love." I think it would be a warped view of the world that sees love as a problem.

I can't really comment on spiritual development because I do not use it, but I can comment on the personal development

You can't have one without the other. You give the impression that you consider humans to be organic machines, and love is an inconvenience.

If one has attained that Self realisation then you understand the nature of existence and consequently do not suffer.

Hi Barafundle .

Only when an Individual Is functioning within the realization Is there no sufferings had because there Is no self present that can suffer, for who would be suffering .

The root cause of suffering - Is being within the state of the unrealized .

That unrealized state contains a lack of self love and one needs to self love In order to lose the self and become realized .

daz .

If I am within the now (within supposing there is a not within as you point out already makes some assumptions) then apart from corrupted memories what is evident should be accurate and truthful, or is this another bit of logic that cannot apply in the Now? What if suffering in the now is an illusion?

Suffering in the Now is an illusion you are correct. To use buddhist terminology, suffering is a delusion of the mind, and to be free of suffering we need to be free of attachment in the mind.

You now say that the Now contains the past "Forgive me, but I actually said the Now does contain the past as it exists in the Now, but cannot contain the past as it was when it was an event/action at that point in the past." But up until now you have said that the past does not exist - how can something contain something that does not exist? If you mean the corrupt memories then they are not the past, they are only memories - you have said this. So what kind of past is it in the now if it is not a corrupt memory that is not the past, and the past does not exist? I thought I was getting this but this just makes it all confused again. "I think the above differentiation between your perception of the past in the now and the past as it was, is where the confusion lies." - yes - this is the confusion. How can a different past exist in the now that is not a corrupt memory for the past does not exist.

Conceptually, there are two different pasts. There is the past as it was when the event/action took place (which is inclusive of the whole universe at that single point of time) which no longer exists in the now except as a concept of mind, and there is the past which is that same event/action as it has been corrupted in the mind and exists in the present moment. We can refer to it as 'past' to give it a label, but in fact it is just a creation of the mind in the present moment... it is created Now and it has never existed before, even though it is based on the memories of that past event/action. So the first 'past' doesn't exist any more, and the second 'past' is not really the past, it's just a label for a creation of the mind in the Now. From this, we can see that the past does not exist at all, though we have conceptual 'pasts' in the Now.

Now my point about the sun I think is relevant - you have said that the Now does not include the past, and yet the Sun that you see is not the Sun in the present - it is minutes old, and the galaxy any number of years old, so what you are seeing, and claiming as part of the Now is actually not in the Now, it is the equivalent of 'corrupt memories'. Yes - the sun as you see it now is what hits your eyes, but corrupt memories are what hit your brain, there is no difference, each is hitting nerve inputs to your perception - the light exists here and now, as do the memories. You have no need to focus on the light that may hit your eyes later in the now perhaps, but the object that you are perceiving is not in the now, it is just a corrupt memory. This reduces your sphere of actual perception down to only local events, only the light from the sun can be included, not the sun, just as only the events happening now can be included, not corrupt memories from the past.

Well I said we could get pedantic... and you did. The Sun as I perceieve it, which is the lighy hitting my eyes, is as good as the sun as I will even know, and it is the consistency of this concept of mind that creates the Sun label we put to it. It is what the buddhist teachings would call a correct non conceptual perceiver rather than an incorrect conceptual perceiver, but let's not get too much into that sort of terminology as the buddhist model of the mind is varied and complex. So, yes we could say that was we are perceiving is local and we could never know the universe any further than that except as a memory (not necessarily corrupt as we can't assume all memories are corrupt, only those upon which attachment grows). That being the case, means that because science is not here in my local perception, then science does not exist, so what good is it in proving anything.... and hence you can see why it was pedantic to go down this route. Doing so, we arrive at the conclusion that our consciousness creates our perceptual universe, which is perfectly true, but detracts from the nature of this conversation I would say.

"Science is wonderful as a tool, but to rely on it wholeheartedly as the ultimate proving of the universe is, from my xperience,
foolish." - yes I agree, but it is the most relevant of all the tools we have.

And who has determined that it's the most relevant? ... the scientists. and so we go around in circles again. Scientists are their own proof of their own worth. It proves nothing.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Hi Paul,

I have told you a number of times -I am a simple reiki healer, and the reiki modality is well documented and the issues of proving its effectiveness open to scrutiny.
.

Hi Chris,

Seems from this thread of yours ([url]lies, lies and dam* lies [/url]) that you're none too keen on lieing (Maybe I'm wrong - only you could give an honest answer to that.), so I can only assume that you seem to have forgotten about your use of Shamanism methods, mentioned [url]here in this post (#3)[/url]. - although you don't specifically use the word Shamanic, I personally have never read or heared about Soul Retrieval mentioned in a Reiki documentation.

Hi Chris

It is not about whether the ritual you contrived is effective or not, you have no evidence that it works and I have none that it does not work. It is about the manner and the reason that it is fabricated. This is the basis of all you do - make it up as you go along in order to bolster the healer, the client has no power in this process and is given no respect or love.

The reality is that I did not have to fabricate anything, I just had to work with what had already in been created.

Just for clarification let us examine what happened on this occasion, a request was placed for information about the removal of an attunement in the Reiki forum, because a Reiki healer had been requested by a client for them to remove the attunement that they had given them, now although this healer was saying that they did not have any information on this, they had already received the answer of how to do it intuitively from the fullness of self.

Now as I understood what was required to respect the clients wishes to have the attunement removed, I put it up on the forum, the divulging of that information was given to help a fellow healer fulfil their clients wishes, which was what was important, not to bolster the healer or anything else.

I really do not understand how you can take my helpful response to empower and respect another healers client and interpret it the way that you have chosen to do so.

I have looked at the kind of thing you claim to do, I see that I have no limitations if I choose to behave like you, by discarding any respect and concern for others and seeking only to create those things that serve me. I reject it because it is not respectful and loving to others, and it is not respectful to myself - if there is a limitation within me it is one I choose because I see it as spiritually dishonest and unethical.

No, you have not looked into what I do, as what I do is unique and I have not yet taught the full modality to anyone else yet, so you can't have found it anywhere else, so you have absolutely no basis for posting all the negativity that you post about me, because you have no conceptual understanding of who I am, what I am capable of doing, how my healing modality works, or the way that I actually perform healing to help the people who need what I offer.

You say that because I have not tried your modality I do not know what I am talking about - a very judgemental and dismissive view, but I am able to see whether the descriptions you have given treat the clients with respect,

That is true, you appear to believe that it is quite all right to pass judgement on something that you have no personal experience of.

I am able to see that the system is focussed on being self-serving and that it appears to have no basis of love and compassion. This alone, never mind whether it is effective or not, and as an aside this is nothing to do with the concept and actuality of the 'Now', for that is a separate issue.

All healing it given to serve the person that it is given to, the fact that the healing works in the now is not a separate issue, all healing is given and received in the now for the good of the recipient, that makes all healing self serving, so that is the way that I give it.

I suspect that you are using occult means to change people, (you still will not describe how you do the healing and yet you definitely should be informing the client about how you do this), and this is why you claim to be healing them, and they do none of the healing - either that or you are doing nothing and claiming their healing (self-healing) in error.

So as well as all the other negative things that you have labelled me as, I am also an occultist!

Now I do not mind the title healer because that is what I am, but to my knowledge (you might know differently of course, you usually do) I have never been involved with the occult and do not appreciate the implication that I have or that my healing and personal development modality which you do not understand utilises occultist methods.

I think I have answered your questions in an open and honest way to try and give you some insight to what I do, unfortunately you have chosen to continually twist my words around to make them and me sound negative, you have accused me of lots of things which bear no resemblance to who I am or how I work and you have attempted time and time again to discredit my healing modality without first bothering to find out the truth.

As I no longer wish to see my words twisted around and degraded, I am making this my last response to you.

This thread reminds of how reiki was treated by certain religions a few years back - it was referred to the occult back then too - still is to a certain extent. Had someone on a forum the other day saying it was saten dressed up as an angel of light :confused:.

Anyway! Chris no offense and hope i'm not speaking out ot turn but I think you might want to have a look at why Paul and his method is getting to you so much. The energy you have put into this thread indicates that there's an emotional issue you may not have looked at that lays inside of you. Could be wrong off course - just an observant onlooker!

I don't agree with his thinking either but who am i to say he's wrong and i'm right. If people go to him and experience what he does then surely if it's 'bad' for them then that's for their experience and who are we to stop them experiencing anything that they may be here to experience?

Hi Giles,
I do not ascribe to all Buddhist teachings (people use what they choose to use from these - I believe in karma, not all do).
It again depends on what suffering we talk about - there are plenty of examples of where it is a 'construct' of the mind, worry is a clear example of this for me, while a child deprived of food in a famine area is clearly no causing its own suffering. This is not just about attachment, though it can be.
And it does seem as if losing attachment to things and people does relieve suffering - the question is not whether it does for me but rather whether there is a net gain, by giving up attachments and thereby losing suffering the loss of so many other positive experiences makes the process a negative one - I think that a life spent by losing attachments simply to avoid suffering is a waste of opportunity to experience some of the finest things available to us. Now before you start off again, I am not advocating unnecessary suffering, I just believe that suffering and enjoyment, love and sorrow, all the other aspects of living are a valuable part of our existence - there is no life without death, a balance is always maintained.

Yes- the two different pasts are interesting.
In terms of the Buddhist model of attachment you also need to seek the answer as to whether seeking a life of no suffering by having no attachments is actually a life spent being attached to a state of no suffering. This is the fundamental problem that makes this in a mobius strip of contradiction. Buddha did what he did to get off the cycle of constant rebirth, to end the cycle of karma, not because he did not like suffering - it was a logical process to achieve an aim.

In the botanical world when a new species is named or a reshuffle of existing species is proposed it is up to the botanists and horticulturalists to accept it or not. There is no coercion. It is up to the proposer to make the best case they can, and I think it is the same with (generally) scientists, if you think that something is bogus you can say so and you should seek to show why, simply to discard it is not enough.

Hi WildStrawberry,
No - I never forget about those other things I have learned, but I use reiki for healing. There are healers rites in the Munay Ki - but they are mostly about self healing, the journey into soul retrieval was a personal journey and I have never offered it to others - I talk to Jesus but do not ask him to help with my healing sessions, I use reiki for healing others, if I find something better, something that serves the client better I will consider using it, but have not found one yet. I admire many healers who have used other methods - Dorothy Kerin is a prime example of a Christian healer who I admire and respect greatly, but I am a reiki healer. In terms of lies - I stopped many years ago and found the process liberating. When I take on a new reiki client I describe only what I believe and make it clear that it is what I believe.

Hi Paul,
Respect for a client's wishes is different to respect for the client, fabricating ritual in order to either experiment on them or simply fool them into some kind of accepting state does not show respect. This as much as anything perhaps clarifies why I see your system as being only self-serving for itself and why it looks as if there is no respect for the client. Time and time again you have demonstrated this by the words you use.

I have asked you many times to describe to me the things you do, I am interested, but you have not done so, the methods you use to 'heal others' are not clear, they are hidden, and that is why I use the word occult, form the actual meaning of the word and the mode of use. If this is a secret process then it will never be possible for people to evaluate the honesty and effectiveness for themselves, they are asked to believe only that it works, and that makes it faith healing.
I accept that healing given is healing, but changes made to a person's consciousness states do not describe healing alone, they are not by definition exclusive, change can be detrimental for the client or made for other ulterior reasons, and so far you have not made it clear why these changes are only healing.

Hi Malchy,
Yes - reiki was regarded as occult - even today many feel worried about 'revealing the symbols' to non-reiki people. Today it is much more accepted, the process is well published and it is now mostly the competition that worries the churches (some of whom allow reiki healers to do healing in the church) - spiritual healing is a similar example. I don't think anything in reiki is hidden, and so it is not by definition occult, but it is a spiritual process in my mind. If a church goer called it occult I would not be offended - I would simply ask what I could do to show them how it works. I treat a number of church-going Christians.
I've investigated many modalities, I am interested, some are bogus and simply try to dupe the client, others not, it is important that we as the 'healing community' discern the difference.
love
chris