Forum
I am tired of people saying that Reiki doesn't treat conditions directly when this is the very thing that Mikao Usui intended Reiki to be used for. Mikao Usui said in his Instruction for the Public,
"If healer stares or breathes on or strokes with hands at the affected area such as toothache, colic pain, stomachache, neuralgia, bruises, cuts, burns and other swellings with pain will be gone."
"Any illness such as psychological or an organic disease can be cured by this method."
"Usui Reiki Ryoho does not only heal illness. Mental illness such as agony, weakness, timidity, irresolution, nervousness and other bad habit can be corrected."
"If brain disease occurs, I treat a head. If it’s a stomachache, I treat a stomach. If it’s an eye disease, I treat eyes."
Where on earth do people get the notion that Reiki just helps the body to heal itself when Mikao Usui said himself that he treated conditions directly. In Fran and Bronwen Stiene's Reiki Sourcebook, they quote Mikao Usui's memorial stone erected by his students and they say again that during the Kanto earthquake Mikao Usui cured many people.
So many people seem to be belittling what Reiki can do. Providing it is used correctly and the symbols are used correctly to work on conditions, then Reiki does treat conditions directly. I have successfully treated many people with Reiki.
What also concerns me is that people keep talking about chakras, which have nothing to do with Reiki whatsoever. The chakra system is not Japanese and not relevant to Reiki. Reiki is about uniting the physical, emotional and spiritual to create 'oneness' and the chakra system plays no part whatsoever. It is much more effective to treat conditions directly.
RE: Explanation of Instruction for The Public
It is my understanding that we have to be very careful how we advertise and the claims we make about our therapies. Claiming a cure is not something we are able to do.
RE: Explanation of Instruction for The Public
I agree with both the above posts. Although Usui Sensei may have said (through translation) those things, in the UK we are not permitted by law to make claims of cures etc. Unfortunately it is the law that dictates how we have to portray Reiki to some extent, not our own beliefs or understanding or Reiki.
Totally agree with the Chakra thing btw. I come across people quite often who I have to correct on this. Although Chakras may be used during Reiki treatments they are not part of Reiki per se.
Love and Reiki Hugs
RE: Explanation of Instruction for The Public
Hi, I am happy others are not saying that the chakra belong to reiki system because chakra is from the Indian systems of energy work. Although the law says we can't say reiki is cure if we have no evidence of this we can say reiki cure if we have evidence of this I think.
I think that reiki healers know that anything will be cured by reiki but are too afraid of law to say so. I never say I can cure unless I have evidence I can but I know in my heart that I can.
Reiki is beautiful and helps so the law should be changed to show this. I think people are ignorant to what reiki is and does so wwe have to show them.
Angel
RE: Explanation of Instruction for The Public
Technically, if the body's energy system is what Reiki is about, then the chakra system is part of Reiki. The only difference is that the Japanese use a different term. A chakra, as you well know, is an energy centre, and is the Indian take on an acupuncture point. Each of the 7 chakras is related to an acupuncture point...
RE: Explanation of Instruction for The Public
I am sure that if Usui would have learned about the chakras then they would have been in his systems, just because they where not put in does not make them non functional or in the case of disease malfunctioning.
But yes they where not a part of Usuis systems and the knowledge of them is not required to make his systems work 🙂
RE: Explanation of Instruction for The Public
Hello and welcome to HP and this forum. You said:
ORIGINAL: divinesparkles
we can say reiki cure if we have evidence of this I think.
May I ask what you would consider to be 'evidence' of a 'cure'? I have to say though, whatever your answer might be, that we do need to be very, very wary of making possibly unsubstantiated claims which could result in litigation.
IIRC, in a thread in the Cancer forum a year or more ago, a member of HP cited a case where a cancer sufferer had been promised a cure with Reiki, and when that didn't happen, he took it to court ... and won the case.
I think we need to be very careful what we say.
Holistic
RE: Explanation of Instruction for The Public
Hi and thank you for the welcome.
I hear that if you have the cure that you can prove that works on conditions then you can legally say that it works as long as you have written evidence and testimonial of clients. I do not say that reiki gives cure but I think that is implied with the client coming for healing because they know reiki will work. Many reiki people I know have cured people with same condition, including me, and we wouldn't say that we can give cure but that we have good success in treating condition because of legal implications.
What I think though is that there is a lot of tie in with the drugs companies with the doctors and government and they want not another way of getting better for people. I know people sell cures that do not work but there are many that do work but even the drug company don't say they can cure.
I know that reiki does cure though and so do other people. With evidence in the future maybe we can say that when we prove that reiki is godd cure for people.
Angel
RE: Explanation of Instruction for The Public
I am not saying that anyone should promise a client a cure. I certainly would never do this. I would promise to do the best I can to help the client's condition improve. I would however have the intention of curing the condition whilst I was healing the person and visualise the illness or injury healing as this has a very powerful effect. Although we should never say to clients that we can cure them we as practitioners have to believe in the ability of Reiki to cure, to be effective. I might say to a client that I am working on the condition but in my head I am visualising that condition being completely healed.
RE: Explanation of Instruction for The Public
What also concerns me is that people keep talking about chakras, which have nothing to do with Reiki whatsoever. The chakra system is not Japanese and not relevant to Reiki. Reiki is about uniting the physical, emotional and spiritual to create 'oneness' and the chakra system plays no part whatsoever. It is much more effective to treat conditions directly.
Why should it concern you?
When you channel energy you are directly having an effect on the energy centres within the body. The chakra system may not be 'obviously' relevant to reiki, but where do you think the energy is being channelled to?
All ds-ease is first seen within the energy bodies and blockages in the chakras, before manifesting on the pysical. So, how do the chakras play no part in reiki whatsoever?
RE: Explanation of Instruction for The Public
It would seem to be the case that whilst we cannot claim to be able to cure people, from our experience as Reiki 'healers' should we be able to claim that we have helped to cure people.
A patient comes to you with a headache, you provide a Reiki treatment, their headache is cured. The next day another patient comes to you and says "can you cure my headache?" By law it appears that you cannot say "yes", however you might like to claim that yesterday another patient's headache was cured after you provided a Reiki treatment without implying that it was the Reiki that cured the headache.
Interestingly, we did an MBS show last year and hadpeople visit our stand asking can Reikicure X or Y etc. After a conversation of "it might help, maybe, could, possibly, you never know until you try" etc, many looked bemused and walked on by. Do we question the orthodox medics in a similar way. Next time you have a need to visit your GP - ask them if they will cure you? How many times do we get "Try thesetablets, take two aday and if you're no better in a week come back and see me again"
BTW - What is the difference between healing and curing?
Papillon
RE: Explanation of Instruction for The Public
Just on the chakras point, I agree with Darren - the self healing hand positions begin with the head then each hand placement is over each chakra I believe, although again maybe this is part of the later changes to the system from the original teaching. However they are still energy centres so for a whole body treatment it seems logical to use these locations?
Josh 🙂
RE: Explanation of Instruction for The Public
It might be that what is causing the headache in one person is a bad stomach, in another it might be stress. Conventional medicine would probably treat those the same - treat the symptoms and not the underlying problems. If we treat specific parts of the body (going back to an earlier post) how do we know that we are treating the right part?
(this wasn't what I set out to answer, hence lack of quote, but this is what came out!!)
RE: Explanation of Instruction for The Public
This is very interesting reading. I am only Reiki I so no symbols yet. I was told that Reiki will go to wherever it is needed so do hand positions really matter that much?
"It might be that what is causing the headache in one person is a bad stomach, in another it might be stress. Conventional medicine would probably treat those the same - treat the symptoms and not the underlying problems"
This is one of the reasons I have completed a Kinesiology Foundation Course to cut out the guess work. I have found it to be a very valuable tool which helps to pin point inbalances and enable me to make corrections.
RE: Explanation of Instruction for The Public
I was told that Reiki will go to wherever it is needed so do hand positions really matter that much?
It is a common myth that Reiki goes to where it is needed. It goes where you put it.