The so-called highest good
pr
is not the same as the good of the individual coming for a
Reiki session?
Although there may be exceptions, I cannot come up
with any ordinary situations where the Highest Good
would be different from the immediate personal good
which has brought the person to a healer.
If a wife/mother comes to you with persistent headaches
which the doctors cannot explain and treat, how would the
Highest Good be served by her not getting any relief?
If a man/father comes to you with inoperable cancer how
would the Highest Good be served by him not getting any
better, let alone being cured?
If a hyperactive child comes to you, how would the Highest
Good be served by him/her not becoming calmer?
Peter
MikeH
"pr" <p...@telkom.net> wrote in message
news:6I6dnT2B_7D0zYTX...@saix.net...
On the surface, I would agree with you. But I cannot put myself into the
position of defining "The Highest Good". Surely only the "Highest" being can
decide that.
Much as I hate the idea, I must remain open to the possibility that an
individual's immediate suffering might contribute to a higher purpose. But
the thought of a anyone, a child above all, suffering at all drives me to
distraction and leads me to believe that there is no such higher being nor a
higher purpose than the caring for each other in whatever way we can.
MikeH
www.GymRatZ.co.uk
> Can anyone give me examples where the Highest Good
> is not the same as the good of the individual coming for a
> Reiki session?
>
> Although there may be exceptions, I cannot come up
> with any ordinary situations where the Highest Good
> would be different from the immediate personal good
> which has brought the person to a healer.
>
> If a wife/mother comes to you with persistent headaches
> which the doctors cannot explain and treat, how would the
> Highest Good be served by her not getting any relief?
>
energy doctors don't aknowledge?
Treatment would start eroding and clearing whatever non-physical trauma
that manifested in physical pain.
If we were to suggest "Reiki stop this headache" perhaps the pain would
subside temporarily but the cause would not be acted on, so "highest
good" means do your thing on what needs to be don to help clear the
problems we don't understand.
> If a man/father comes to you with inoperable cancer how
> would the Highest Good be served by him not getting any
> better, let alone being cured?
>
cutter clearing away all the turmoil and garbage, confusion and
uncertainty. It could help him accept and be at paece with the end ofhis
time. Allow him to make sure nothing is left un-sorted. All the i's are
dotted, all loose ends tied up to help those left behind. So he can go
forward in complete peace. And helping those around accept that he went
with a smile because he knew he was moving on to a better place.
> If a hyperactive child comes to you, how would the Highest
> Good be served by him/her not becoming calmer?
>
highest good in that situation, but if the mother is feeding the kid
poisons day in day out how can anything stop that? Perhaps the child
would get a disliking for chocolate, or sweets or kids drinks full of
crap and start asking for fruit and orange juice. That would be far
better than simply temorarilly reducing the symptoms and not targetting
the source... which the practitioner would have no way of knowing was
the cause.
That my take on it and my rambling for the night.
:�)
Pete
www.GymRatZ.co.uk
> Much as I hate the idea, I must remain open to the possibility that an
> individual's immediate suffering might contribute to a higher purpose. But
> the thought of a anyone, a child above all, suffering at all drives me to
> distraction and leads me to believe that there is no such higher being nor a
> higher purpose than the caring for each other in whatever way we can.
think...
http://www.derekacorah.org/Dereks_Beliefs.html
Somewhere further down the page is the following...
"The ultimate aim for any spirit is to ascend to the higher spiritual
realms - to gain soul growth. To achieve this we have to ensure that we
have had as many experiences as we possibly can, both good or bad, in
our earthly incarnations. The harsher the experience the higher our true
self climbs on the spiritual ladder. In subsequent incarnations we may
choose an easier lifetime here on earth."
So if that phiosophy rings home, then it suggests the spirit would have
chosen the severity of their life on their current incarnation.
It's one phiosophy, but it "feels" correct to me.
YMMV of course.
:�)
Pete
MikeH
"www.GymRatZ.co.uk" <discount-fitn...@gym.shop.com> wrote in
message news:gvcc0j$778$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
So does that mean that we should NOT help one another? Just in case we spoil
someones Kharma?
MikeH
www.GymRatZ.co.uk
> So does that mean that we should NOT help one another? Just in case we spoil
> someones Kharma?
torture, disabillity, and so on through to who knows? Winning the
lottery, getting married, having children, Way more than we could
experience in a single lifetime.
Helping somone will not detract from their experiences. Anyway, your
helping somone in whatever way is part of your own experiences.
:�)
That's one way of looking at it.
Others will have their own ideas and suggestions no doubt.
art
> Can anyone give me examples where the Highest Good
> is not the same as the good of the individual coming for a
> Reiki session?
>
> Although there may be exceptions, I cannot come up
> with any ordinary situations where the Highest Good
> would be different from the immediate personal good
> which has brought the person to a healer.
>
> If a wife/mother comes to you with persistent headaches
> which the doctors cannot explain and treat, how would the
> Highest Good be served by her not getting any relief?
perhaps the thoughts words and actions (the real cause) that got her
in this shape to begin with
would change if she grows tired of suffering.
> If a man/father comes to you with inoperable cancer how
> would the Highest Good be served by him not getting any
> better, let alone being cured?
doesn't it happen all the time? is what happens out of the realm of of
"higher good?
>
> If a hyperactive child comes to you, how would the Highest
> Good be served by him/her not becoming calmer?
it seems like you are putting the cart before the horse. it seems to
me that you believe the highest
good (being cured) is higher than the process. what happened to the
precepts? isn't the highest good being served by working ones way
through them each day whether or not the "cure" takes place in your
time frame?
hi peter:) kevin
> Peter
pr
"art" <kevinov...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d692cf63-e627-4615...@p21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> it seems like you are putting the cart before the horse. it seems to
> me that you believe the highest
> good (being cured) is higher than the process. what happened to the
> precepts? isn't the highest good being served by working ones way
> through them each day whether or not the "cure" takes place in your
> time frame?
It seems that the best we can come up with is to invoke a controlling
deity or propose some "higher process" of some sorts to gloss over
out healing failures.
To propose such speculative thoughts to a person with a real problem
could almost be seen as some form of cruelty.
Certainly, there are process at work, but can we automatically label
them to be of a higher kind?
I would say that no person who is really, really sick or in real pain
gives a damn about the "Highest Good", never mind what the ultimate
outcome may be. I would further say that the average person in such a
situation is not even capable of thinking and working in terms of
"higher good", it would only come into play when recovery has begun.
To take the possible retrospective insight that it was somehow the
best thing that happened to them does not make our failure to give
relief when it was asked for all-right.
Peter
art
> "art" <kevinoverhul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d692cf63-e627-4615...@p21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > it seems like you are putting the cart before the horse. it seems to
> > me that you believe the highest
> > good (being cured) is higher than the process. what happened to the
> > precepts? isn't the highest good being served by working ones way
> > through them each day whether or not the "cure" takes place in your
> > time frame?
>
> It seems that the best we can come up with is to invoke a controlling
> deity or propose some "higher process" of some sorts to gloss over
> out healing failures.
you sound like an "est" follower. . " sometimes understanding is the
booby
prise!" try the precepts yourself.
> To propose such speculative thoughts to a person with a real problem
> could almost be seen as some form of cruelty.
only cruel to one whom doesn't feel adaquate to deal with the illness.
> Certainly, there are process at work, but can we automatically label
> them to be of a higher kind?
if you feel "victimized" by them then yes. . . higher than what your
own
awareness aspires to.
> I would say that no person who is really, really sick or in real pain
can we just use the term "sick" and "pain"? verses really sick and
real pain?
you build the same case here for something bigger than *your*
understanding
and power to heal.
> gives a damn about the "Highest Good", never mind what the ultimate
> outcome may be.
some take comfort in this good and stop struggling. . . although they
are relieved when they begin to take responsibility for their
recovery.
>I would further say that the average person in such a
> situation is not even capable of thinking and working in terms of
> "higher good", it would only come into play when recovery has begun.
recovery begins the moment you claim it.
> To take the possible retrospective insight that it was somehow the
> best thing that happened to them does not make our failure to give
> relief when it was asked for all-right.
maybe you should take up another healing modality peter if
your own failure to give relief needs to be reiki-ed.
k.
>
> Peter
MikeH
Only of you are capable of "claiming" it.
Not all people are capable of these things. This seems to be an assumption
that such a capacity is open to all. It is not.
MikeH
art
hi mike,
it *is* "open" to all.
that's like saying one has infinite choices but alas, that person can
do
only one thing. . . the same thing s/he has always done.
part of your job as a healer is to aid or make capable.
the precepts can help you enable this.
k.
MikeH
hi mike,
it *is* "open" to all.
that's like saying one has infinite choices but alas, that person can
do
only one thing. . . the same thing s/he has always done.
part of your job as a healer is to aid or make capable.
the precepts can help you enable this.
k.
"alas, that person can do only one thing. . . the same thing s/he has always
done."
That was my point...
By the time we become adults, we have a "mind set" (Note: "set" has at least
two meanings 1) unchangeable 2) group.
The door may be there and "open" but the person may not be able to go
through it, because of their mindset. That's why these discussions within
the group rumble on for months. However open-minded we feel we are. our mind
set gets in the way. It takes an enormous effort or an epiphany to make any
such change.
With regard to healing (I had written a long, descriptive text here which
would have bored the pants off everyone, alienated some and got me down in
the dumps for ages. Fortunately for all of us, I deleted it) I need to heal
myself first.
However, my mindset puts other people first and I never get round to it. My
mindset also doesn't allow me to take on board any argument which would
benefit me and put me on the path to self-healing.
Stopping now, getting maudlin.
Love to everyone
MikeH
art
> hi mike,
> it *is* "open" to all.
> that's like saying one has infinite choices but alas, that person can
> do
> only one thing. . . the same thing s/he has always done.
> part of your job as a healer is to aid or make capable.
> the precepts can help you enable this.
> k.
>
> "alas, that person can do only one thing. . . the same thing s/he has always
> done."
>
> That was my point...
>
> By the time we become adults, we have a "mind set" (Note: "set" has at least
> two meanings 1) unchangeable 2) group.
>
> The door may be there and "open" but the person may not be able to go
> through it, because of their mindset. That's why these discussions within
> the group rumble on for months.
i believe you have just fallen into the same "trap" yourself.
However open-minded we feel we are. our mind
> set gets in the way. It takes an enormous effort or an epiphany to make any
> such change.
the energy expended is worth the effort.
i can see if one has never experienced it that it would
seem quite futile but that is no reason to quit.
for the same reasons people don't take the precepts
seriously and thus do not get any benefit from them.
>
> With regard to healing (I had written a long, descriptive text here which
> would have bored the pants off everyone, alienated some and got me down in
> the dumps for ages. Fortunately for all of us, I deleted it) I need to heal
> myself first.
>
> However, my mindset puts other people first and I never get round to it. My
> mindset also doesn't allow me to take on board any argument which would
> benefit me and put me on the path to self-healing.
those "mindsets" you experience are common and are
also commonly overcome with effort. there are multitudes of excuses
for not pursuing them. one of the
main reasons is fear of failure but as a healer you must
lead the way as to be an example.
heal thyself.
k.
art
> I know some folks will have seen this already but it makes you stop and
> Somewhere further down the page is the following...
>
> "The ultimate aim for any spirit is to ascend to the higher spiritual
> realms - to gain soul growth. To achieve this we have to ensure that we
> have had as many experiences as we possibly can, both good or bad, in
> our earthly incarnations. The harsher the experience the higher our true
> self climbs on the spiritual ladder.
i am so tired of hearing this sort of nonsense. i guess
there must be some reward for enduring bullshit in the
spiritual realm.
>In subsequent incarnations we may
> choose an easier lifetime here on earth."
where i suppose we wouldn't "climb the spiritual ladder
one step" (no points for an easy go of it).
> So if that phiosophy rings home, then it suggests the spirit would
have
> chosen the severity of their life on their current incarnation.
it's difficult to imagine the point of "climbing", if just to in your
newfound growth and awareness,
choose another crumby little life so to climb some more.
k.
Theo
for HIghest good is IMHO a nonsensical sentence... if Reiki is
operating for the good or the best for the pending situation for
which is used , how could good be better or for its highest good.. are
different grading in good ? Could be Reiki be so stupid to target a
wrong ...target ? might REiki misunderstand what we hope it should
do ? might be fooled by our no-spoken intentions and biased ?
Better often is worse than good ... it is like when I see a falling
star I cross my fingers and think *hope all will be ok *
just a way of conveying all best opportunities to me , a mantra ..
whatever .. superstition .. human weakness..
Theo