I have to make a slight change to my last post because I misread it slightly while watching the olympics at the same time!
I've quoted the original posting below, because again, I've been misquoted, this time by Beamstalk.
I am a Reiki Master- and I read this thread with fascination.
Beacuse I too have reservations about some of the claims people make regarding what Reiki is supposed to be able to do!
I didn't learn Reiki quickly. I took each level 6 months apart, and found it helpful, on a meditative level. I was also surprised at how effective it has been in reducing spasticity in a friend with Cerebral Palsy, and how useful it has been with children with behavioural problems.
I can completely understand the attitudes expressed throughout this thread, as it's a difficult pill to swallow, believing in energy that you can't see, nor prove exists, and then believing that this energy can have positive benefits.
But I think if you focus on the lack of scientific 'proof', and ignore the actual benefits that can be derived from regular practice, then you've kind of missed the point of Reiki altogether.
I don't see it as some sort of money making excerise. It is a way of life, without the dogma that is attached to so many other ways of life otherwise described as religions.
If you regularly practise Reiki, there ARE health benefits. But then, there are health benefits with other regular practices such as meditation, yoga etc. Reiki is not alone in practices that can benefit a person during it's practice.
Those who believe there's no positive effects, might actually try it out! It doesn't cost anything to learn the hand positions (look them up online), and then take an hour out of your schedule to perform the positions on yourself. If you don't feel more relaxed afterwards, then I'd be extremely surprised!
You will note, that I DID NOT claim that Reiki says nothing about healing. I even experessed concern about some of the claims people make about what it is supposed to do.
The point is, I have not claimed specifically that Reiki HEALS.
I cannot support scientifically that my experience of positive experiences to health where me and a couple of friends are concerned would necessarily be repeated in every case, but I have suggested that those people who have decided without proper experience of Reiki, and by proper I mean regular treatment/self-treatment and possibly even taking the courses, that there's no benefit from it, should try it before they knock it.
My position is clear I think, and I see no need to defend it any further. I'm entitled to believe what I wish, and I don't pursuade others of it, just put my own point of view across. SO get off your high horses the lot of you, and start looking at things in a more balanced way instead of trying to verbally crucify anyone who doesn't agree with you!
Reiki does not claim to heal at all- individuals claim to heal with Reiki, Reiki doesn't say anything at all, it has no voice! And I have not used the word heal in conjunction with Reiki in any of my posts, so please, stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and focus on the actual point of the posting if you're going to quote it.
You will note, that I DID NOT claim that Reiki says nothing about healing. I even experessed concern about some of the claims people make about what it is supposed to do.
ok....
I then asked if it does not "heal" as you claim then what do you mean by "positive consequence to health" and how does that differ from what you mean by healing?
Beamstalk, again, I did not say that it does not 'heal', neither did I say that it does heal.
I said that REIKI does not claim to heal, beacuse REIKI cannot claim anything, it not having a voice. Come on, you must understand the point I was making, however insignificant it may be in the overall scheme of things!
It's people that make claims. Or do not as the case may be!
You've just twisted your argument again. Your previous post claimed that "MASTERY OF REIKI" was what I claimed helped my friend. Your last post leads to the conclusion that "REIKI" is what I claimed helped my friend.
You claim to be a reiki master, this you really cannot dispute because it is there in your previous posts. If you are a reiki master, surely this means you have "mastered reiki", so the descriptive term "master of reiki" is fitting and apt. This is plain english, and not manipulated in any way. It is you who claimed that reiki has benefits as seen in bold below.
I was also surprised at how effective it has been in reducing spasticity in a friend with Cerebral Palsy, and how useful it has been with children with behavioural problems.
Would this not lead the reader to believe that you were claiming reiki helped your friend, and also children with behavioural problems? It does to me, and Im sure it does to everyone else also.
They are not the same arguments. And you probably know that, but it's worth distinguishing between the two claims anyway in an effort to highlight the way you manipulate language to draw specific conclusions, all of which are designed to attack both the argument and the person furthering it, regardless of your previous claims not to forward ad hominem arguments. It's all desperately childish, and to be honest, I've got much better things to do than to continue this pointless nonsense any further.
So what you actually mean is, you are unaccustomed to debating with people who do not take your patently ridiculous claims at face value, and now you are waving a victim card for sympathy? Sorry, but that wont work here because we are "masters of critical thought", and not "woo sponges". The only person being childish here, is you.
Secondly, not bothering to answer purile points doesn't mean that one can't, it just means one can't be bothered!
Yawn!
You could not answer, so you chose a non specific reason to not answer, this is merely an excuse and one I have come to expect from you. I also find it quite ironic you talk about being purile and then end the sentence with "Yawn!", very mature indeed
Where did you learn to argue so manipulatively?
Where did you learn to evade direct questioning in such a surreptious, sly and weasly fashion?
And in answer to your question as to positive consequence(s) to health, apart from the anecdotal evidence I can provide, it's a generally accepted principle that any reduction in stress, a more relaxed disposition, and meditation do have health benefits. You aren't seriously asking me to prove that in this thread are you?
That's not quite the same thing as claiming to 'heal' diseases.
Again, the founder and creator of Reiki claims that it is the cure to all diseases, but I see you don't accept this principle of Reiki.
Thank you for showing the difference by what you mean in "positive consequences to health" and healing. Personally to me, I did not see a difference in the two, but by healing you mean just healing diseases.
I was asking what you meant. Now I would like to see some studies that reiki does any better than just stress reduction, when it comes to positive consequences to health. From what studies I have seen Reiki does no better than placebo. So this would then point to what is the difference between Reiki and a massage, or any other common relaxing technique? And why should people charge to do Reiki or learn Reiki?
By massage I am referring to a friend rubbing your shoulders, not a professional massage.
You claim to be a reiki master, this you really cannot dispute because it is there in your previous posts. If you are a reiki master, surely this means you have "mastered reiki", so the descriptive term "master of reiki" is fitting and apt. This is plain english, and not manipulated in any way. It is you who claimed that reiki has benefits as seen in bold below.
I was also surprised at how effective it has been in reducing spasticity in a friend with Cerebral Palsy, and how useful it has been with children with behavioural problems.
Would this not lead the reader to believe that you were claiming reiki helped your friend, and also children with behavioural problems? It does to me, and Im sure it does to everyone else also.
No I refute that entirely, because you are still surrepticiously trying to avoid addressing your claim that I claimed MASTERY of REIKI is responsible for the experience my friend had in regards to a reduction in muscular spacticity
I am keeping an open mind as to why it is that my friend experienced such noticable benefit from Reiki, and I do not and have not claimed that me being a Master of Reiki is the underlying cause of his experience. For all I know, it has more to do with the placement of hands that anyone can do to themselves and each other, than any mastery of technique. If the reader wants to make intellectual leaps then that's up to them.
It is you that is trying to insinuate that I am claiming Mastery of Reiki is what has given rise to his experience. And I simply haven't claimed that, no matter how hard you try to justify your claim that I have.
Secondly, not bothering to answer purile points doesn't mean that one can't, it just means one can't be bothered!
Yawn!
You could not answer, so you chose a non specific reason to not answer, this is merely an excuse and one I have come to expect from you. I also find it quite ironic you talk about being purile and then end the sentence with "Yawn!", very mature indeed
The irony of my parting gesture in the context, is about the only thing you've said that I actually agree with!
Yawn! ;-)
I really can't be bothered! And without evidence to refute that, what proof do you have of your claims?
Your use of graphic animal imagery, is quite an interesting turn of events though. Certain other people in history have done that to people in an effort to dehumanise them, but I won't make direct comparisons because it will only encourage you!
I'm no weasel. And I'm not sly. THis is the kind of direct insult that I'd come to expect from a dogmatist!
I was asking what you meant. Now I would like to see some studies that reiki does any better than just stress reduction, when it comes to positive consequences to health. From what studies I have seen Reiki does no better than placebo. So this would then point to what is the difference between Reiki and a massage, or any other common relaxing technique? And why should people charge to do Reiki or learn Reiki?
I don't know that Reiki does have any greater benefit than other forms of similarly relaxing and calming treatments- I even refer to other treatments in a previous post. I would also like to see some studies done specifically in relation to its effect on muscular spacticity in cerebral palsy sufferers.
No I refute that entirely, because you are still surrepticiously trying to avoid addressing your claim that I claimed MASTERY of REIKI is responsible for the experience my friend had in regards to a reduction in muscular spacticity
Refute all you like, however you cannot redact because it has been stated by you, and quoted by me. You claim to be a reiki master (or master of reiki whichever you prefer) and the reiki (through you) has reduced spasticity in your friend, easing his discomfort from his condition. You claimed this, not I, yet you are now attempting to deny your claim? Can you not follow even the simplest debate without resorting to imagining the outcome? If mastery of reiki is not responsible for your friends ease, then why remark upon how effective it (reiki )has been in reducing spasticity? That makes no sense at all. Your weasle words will not help you evade this point.
I am keeping an open mind as to why it is that my friend experienced such noticable benefit from Reiki, and I do not and have not claimed that me being a Master of Reiki is the underlying cause of his experience.
You alluded to it, it is there for all to see in black and white in your previous posts.
For all I know, it has more to do with the placement of hands that anyone can do to themselves and each other, than any mastery of technique. If the reader wants to make intellectual leaps then that's up to them.
And why exactly would you believe that the correct placment of hands (whatever this indistinct description actually means) would affect a physiological change in the patients biology? That is unprecedented in science, and would appear to be a case of too much "open mindedness" for your own good. Infact, it is ridiculous.
It is you that is trying to insinuate that I am claiming Mastery of Reiki is what has given rise to his experience. And I simply haven't claimed that, no matter how hard you try to justify your claim that I have.
I think anyone reading this thread in its entirety would be prone to disagree with your assessment.
The irony of my parting gesture in the context, is about the only thing you've said that I actually agree with!
Good for you.
Yawn! ;-)
And then you just had to ruin all your progress
I really can't be bothered! And without evidence to refute that, what proof do you have of your claims?
You cannot be bothered? yet willingly come to a debate forum? I can see your well prepared then, are you also wearing clean underwear incase you get "run over"? My mother swears by this method of preparation.
Incidentally which claims (of mine) are you asking for proof of? This is unclear.
Your use of graphic animal imagery, is quite an interesting turn of events though. Certain other people in history have done that to people in an effort to dehumanise them, but I won't make direct comparisons because it will only encourage you!
Animal imagry? Ill assume you are referring to "weasel", again I see you totally misunderstand the intent of my reply
Here is some information about the term "weasel word", which is not intended to dehumanise, but rather, illuminate the linguisticly fallacy prone.
I'm no weasel. And I'm not sly. THis is the kind of direct insult that I'd come to expect from a dogmatist!
Again you lack understanding of the very words you use to try and win your argument. Honestly this is embarrasing. Let me elucidate you.
Noun 1. dogmatist - a stubborn person of arbitrary or arrogant opinions
I am a sceptic, ergo not stubborn. I am more than willing to let you change my mind if you provide good evidence why I should. My opinions are not arrogant, they are based on the available information at hand. This means my decision is informed and accurate, and verifiable. This (dogmatist) is the opposite of what a sceptic is. You would appear to be confusing the term "sceptic" with the term "cynic", which would suit the dogamist label far more accurately.
[Noun 1. dogmatist - a stubborn person of arbitrary or arrogant opinions
I am a sceptic, ergo not stubborn. I am more than willing to let you change my mind if you provide good evidence why I should. My opinions are not arrogant, they are based on the available information at hand. This means my decision is informed and accurate, and verifiable. This (dogmatist) is the opposite of what a sceptic is. You would appear to be confusing the term "sceptic" with the term "cynic", which would suit the dogamist label far more accurately.[/quote]
No, you are clearly as stubborn as a mule! You are both a skeptic, and a dogmatist. I see no reason why a skeptic cannot be a dogmatist at times. I understood clearly what I meant when I used the word dogmatist. I used it in a derrogatory sense, as in, 'you patronising dogmatist'!
You are arrogant, you are dogmatic, and you are also extremely skeptical.
Here's an example of your arrogance and willingness to further unsupportable and unprovably arguments based on an over-inflated belief in your abilities to know what everyone else would think:
I think anyone reading this thread in its entirety would be prone to disagree with your assessment.
If that's not arrogant I don't know what is!
Here's an example of your dogmatism:
No I refute that entirely, because you are still surrepticiously trying to avoid addressing your claim that I claimed MASTERY of REIKI is responsible for the experience my friend had in regards to a reduction in muscular spacticity
Refute all you like, however you cannot redact because it has been stated by you, and quoted by me. You claim to be a reiki master (or master of reiki whichever you prefer) and the reiki (through you) has reduced spasticity in your friend, easing his discomfort from his condition. You claimed this, not I, yet you are now attempting to deny your claim? Can you not follow even the simplest debate without resorting to imagining the outcome? If mastery of reiki is not responsible for your friends ease, then why remark upon how effective it (reiki )has been in reducing spasticity? That makes no sense at all. Your weasle words will not help you evade this point.
Here's an example of where you continue to further an argument dogmatically, despite not being able to prove that I have claimed as you originally claimed that it is my 'mastery of Reiki' which in itself gave rise to my friend's apparent reduction in spasticity. I introduced myself as a Reiki master, and then went on to describe Reiki as having helped my friend. What I did not say, which is what you keep trying to pretend I did, is anything like that me being a master of Reiki is in itself what has helped my friend. I did say that Reiki did, but not my mastery of it. I simply have not claimed that, so stop wriggling out of this very basic point in such a painfully dogmatic way!
If I told you the moon was made of green cheese, you would be right to refuse to believe me without good evidence. If you did believe me however, we would both be idiots. If I appear stubborn on this matter it is because you are denying what is clearly written by yourself. This does not make me stubborn, but rather correct and accurate.
You are both a skeptic, and a dogmatist.
Half your assessment is correct.
I see no reason why a skeptic cannot be a dogmatist at times.
This is because you do not understand what scepticism is. Hopefully forums like this will assist you in your pursuit of information.
I understood clearly what I meant when I used the word dogmatist. I used it in a derrogatory sense, as in, 'you patronising dogmatist'!
Insults will not win you any argument. We have advanced past that stage.
You are arrogant, you are dogmatic, and you are also extremely skeptical.
Again three innacurate descriptions.
Here's an example of your arrogance and willingness to further unsupportable and unprovably arguments based on an over-inflated belief in your abilities to know what everyone else would think:
*snip*
If that's not arrogant I don't know what is!
It is the assumption that anyone reading this will also come to the same logical conclusion I have. I have given the reader the benefit of the doubt to make up their own mind. This is not arrogance, this is mutual trust.
Here's an example of your dogmatism:
*snip*
I see no dogamtism there, just a coherent and accurate reply.
Here's an example of where you continue to further an argument dogmatically, despite not being able to prove that I have claimed as you originally claimed that it is my 'mastery of Reiki' which in itself gave rise to my friend's apparent reduction in spasticity. I introduced myself as a Reiki master, and then went on to describe Reiki as having helped my friend. What I did not say, which is what you keep trying to pretend I did, is anything like that me being a master of Reiki is in itself what has helped my friend. I did say that Reiki did, but not my mastery of it. I simply have not claimed that, so stop wriggling out of this very basic point in such a painfully dogmatic way!
Oh I think I highlighted your claim very well. However that is for others to decide ultimately. You did allude to your "magical powers" being in someway responsible for "helping" your friend. I assume this was stated to bolster your claim that reiki was real instead of imaginary. This is a circular argument, you have claimed one thing and I have refuted this. Your refutation of my original point is irrelevant, because anyone can read what you originally wrote for themselves.
I don't know that Reiki does have any greater benefit than other forms of similarly relaxing and calming treatments- I even refer to other treatments in a previous post. I would also like to see some studies done specifically in relation to its effect on muscular spacticity in cerebral palsy sufferers.
So then it is quite possible that the positive consequence in health you saw in your friend, was due to the relaxing nature of the session and not to Reiki itself. It is possible then that any placement of hands or even no placement would create the same outcome. Have you tried just relaxing him and telling him you are doing distance Reiki in the room next door and actually not do anything at all? My hypothesis is that you would get the same result. You could also try acting like you are doing Reiki and not the actual hand gesture things and see what result you get then too. In both cases though, it is imperative that the patient knows no difference between the three different styles. This would be a single blind test, not as good as double blind but still closer to an actual test.
This has been a fun debate I think that the problem has been in that we all use text rather than the spoken word. Where Oliphont says the bits about being a Master of Reiki and then mentions Reiki helping his friend, I think we're missing a link where he can say something like "I am a master of reiki and understand it's aims. My friend was seemingly helped by reiki, although I can offer no scientific proof of this" - if the sentences are rewritten like this, it changes the whole tone of the post.
Apologies if I'm reading more into it than is there. Anyway, carry on
I don't think we are going to hear anymore from Oliphont. I was really hoping he would answer my last round of questions or even try one of the experiments I suggested.