Multiplicity of Universal Energy
MikeH
stands behind Reiki.
I have asked similar questions to this before and more often than not been
put in my place!
However, this independent brain of mine keeps on keeping on!
Universal Energy would appear to me to me completely amoral (Not admitting
of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.)
It is an energy or power that can be used to any purpose. This is a position
that has been held by philosphers, magicians, prophets etc. over many
centuries. It is the user that gives the energy its moral direction.
So Reiki, gives it a healing purpose. Because we believe that Reiki is a
healing system, so UE heals. But if there are other systems with other
purposes cannot UE be used to these ends, too?
Take the story of Carrie, in the Stephen King book/film, isn't what she did
because she harnessed UE in a fit of anger and revenge against her
tormentors?
Isn't there a spectrum of ability to harness UE so that some people can do
nothing with it, and and the other end, those who can manipulate it with
ease? And in a scale at rightangles to that, there are those who use it for
good and then thouse who use it for evil?
If I have got this all wrong, as I have been told in the past. Why? Please
tell me why, because after months of discussing it, I am still not
convinced.
There. I've got it off my chest. Publish and be damned, that's me.
Namaste _/\_
MikeH
Gabriel
"MikeH" <trur...@btconnect.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:rY6dnbh_JKHwJOXX...@bt.com...
>snip> If I have got this all wrong, as I have been told in the past. Why?
>convinced.
Two Wolves
An old Cherokee chief is teaching his grandson about life:
"A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy. "It is a terrible fight
and it is between two wolves.
"One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance,
self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority,
self-doubt, and ego.
"The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope,
serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth,
compassion, and faith.
"This same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person,
too."
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather,
"Which wolf will win?"
The old chief simply replied, "The one you feed."
MikeH
"Gabriel" <whowantstok...@nix.com> wrote in message
news:h5bk4h$rn1$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
I really love that beautiful anecdote and I will take it on board and
incorporate it into my life pattern, as it is full of great wisdom.
However, it didn't directly answer my question.
My question is one of fact rather than philosophy or an approach to living.
After several years of asking the same question, because it has never been
satisfactorily answered, despite the fact that I have MY answer to it,
nobody has been able to convincingly say:
a) The Universal Energy only does one thing (i.e. Reiki) OR only does kind
things and then explain why it is limited in such a way, especially as our
lives on Earth are, for the vast majority, (or so I am led to believe) full
of pain.
Because if the UE were only a benign force, where does all the pain come
from in our lives, in the first place?
I am getting too old and tired to carry this search on much longer and I am
beginning to sound like a whinger even to my own ears. This is my last
attempt (I suspect until I regain the energy to carry on this seemingly
fruitless search) to ask the question and I will lay down my keyboard and,
rather childishly, retire from the enquiry, feeling that I was right, all
along, and will then investigate the multiple nature of the UF.
Sorry, guys and gals.
MikeH
GreG
"MikeH" <trur...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:rY6dnbh_JKHwJOXX...@bt.com...
> Universal Energy would appear to me to me completely amoral (Not admitting
> of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.)
>
> It is an energy or power that can be used to any purpose. This is a
> position that has been held by philosphers, magicians, prophets etc. over
> many centuries. It is the user that gives the energy its moral direction.
>
> So Reiki, gives it a healing purpose. Because we believe that Reiki is a
> healing system, so UE heals. But if there are other systems with other
> purposes cannot UE be used to these ends, too?
>
> Take the story of Carrie, in the Stephen King book/film, isn't what she
> did because she harnessed UE in a fit of anger and revenge against her
> tormentors?
>
> Isn't there a spectrum of ability to harness UE so that some people can do
> nothing with it, and and the other end, those who can manipulate it with
> ease? And in a scale at rightangles to that, there are those who use it
> for good and then thouse who use it for evil?
>
> If I have got this all wrong, as I have been told in the past. Why? Please
> tell me why, because after months of discussing it, I am still not
> convinced.
>
> There. I've got it off my chest. Publish and be damned, that's me.
>
> Namaste _/\_
>
> MikeH
Mike, I came across the following just 10 minutes before I read your post,
maybe it will give you some insight ......
There is no source of evil. There is only a Stream of Well-Being, which you
are allowing, or not. But under the name of righteousness and goodness and
religion, you drop bombs on innocent children. And then you say, "it's for
the good of all of us." And we say, we don't see that. And you don't see it
from your Non-physical perspective, either. It's only in your disconnection
that those things make sense.
--- Abraham
Excerpted from the workshop in San Rafael, CA on Saturday, February 26th,
2005
suzee
> I really love that beautiful anecdote and I will take it on board and
> incorporate it into my life pattern, as it is full of great wisdom.
>
> However, it didn't directly answer my question.
>
> My question is one of fact rather than philosophy or an approach to living.
> After several years of asking the same question, because it has never been
> satisfactorily answered, despite the fact that I have MY answer to it,
> nobody has been able to convincingly say:
>
> a) The Universal Energy only does one thing (i.e. Reiki) OR only does kind
> things and then explain why it is limited in such a way, especially as our
> lives on Earth are, for the vast majority, (or so I am led to believe) full
> of pain.
>
> Because if the UE were only a benign force, where does all the pain come
> from in our lives, in the first place?
>
> I am getting too old and tired to carry this search on much longer and I am
> beginning to sound like a whinger even to my own ears. This is my last
> attempt (I suspect until I regain the energy to carry on this seemingly
> fruitless search) to ask the question and I will lay down my keyboard and,
> rather childishly, retire from the enquiry, feeling that I was right, all
> along, and will then investigate the multiple nature of the UF.
>
> Sorry, guys and gals.
>
> MikeH
I think I might understand what you're getting at, and it's fairly simple...
From reading a little in martial arts groups, UE or ki or force can be
used against an opponent, to make them weak and even cause injury, as
well as just to counter their use of ki. So I agree that it is neutral
(rather than amoral) it's how that it's used that determines its healing
or destructive power, like any tool or force of nature. Water, fire,
wind all have 'good' uses as well as destructive uses. UE is not a cause
of pain and suffering, nor a cause of good or healing, it just is.
sue
Garry Williams
Hi Mike,
Others have already answered your question, and answered well, but do you
think that's going to stop me from throwing in my two cents worth? ;-)
First off, we have to distinguish between Reiki the system and the
"energy" or whatever you want to call it that we are working with. So
long as you are working within the Reiki system, you shouldn't be able to
work too much mischief. As soon as you stop operating within the bounds
of acceptable Reiki practice, then you may be able to figure out all
sorts of interesting mischief to get up to.
Secondly, "moral" and "immoral" are human concepts only. Nothing is
really moral or immoral, except within the context of what we believe.
And, as you know, we don't all believe exactly the same things, so that
makes "moral" and "immoral" slippery critters. Is a rock moral or
immoral? How about if you throw it at someone? Okay, how about the act of
throwing itself? Okay, if the rock is neither moral nor immoral, and the
act of throwing is neither moral nor immoral, what makes throwing a rock
at someone's head immoral? Is it the intention? What if you intend to
cause harm, but, through no fault of your own, fail to succeed in causing
harm? Are the rock, the throwing, the living or unliving thing you are
throwing at, your intention, you yourself, moral or immoral?
Just thought I would throw a few questions out there to help you
think. :-)
Love and Light,
Garry
suzee
That's why I used the word 'neutral' in my reply. Moral is a value
judgement, neutral is neither good nor evil. How something is used
determines the ethics of it, but the usage is not the thing itself.
sue
Gabriel
I know it doesn't answer the question, but that's why I quoted this story.
Not all questions have answers other than those we declare to be answers
forthwith.
So as far as I can understand your dilemma...
you'll have to decide, what you want an answer to be.
Once you have gotten that out of the way, things will sort of mosey into
place.
It's fairly easy, really.
If you declare yes and no to be answers, then there you are.
1) The answer is YES, UE can be used for harm.
This is simply because everything is everything.
So harm is a part of everything.
And
2) The answer is NO, UE can not be used for harm.
This is simply because everything is everything.
And consequently there is no harm.
You still there?
I knew you were tough, but not that tough, huh!
So: on we go.
We have a saying: One person's owl is another's nightingale.
In mundane speech this means: not everybody likes spinach.
And lo, there was spinach. And spinach is here to stay. And God saw the
spinach and blessed it forthwith
and now all these poor spitting babies make their greenfaced mommy's day.
And mommy, bless her spinachstirring love
keeps on buying the rotten greengrowing spitwort.
You're still reading this, aren't you?
The point is, your question can be answered both ways. It's entirely up to
you, how you define good and harm and then evaluate whatever happens. Some
people choose to quote things like Providence and Fate and Luck and
Cowabunga-Ooops-Didn't-Mean-It. Others say coincidence, rotten luck old
thing, tough beans and Life-Is-So-Unfair.
It's a tricky issue when you approach themes like the suffering of
innocents, tidal waves, babies dieing, rape victims and so on. Because
everything (UE) is IN everything, behind everything, whatever. So Nature,
Goings On of any kind are ultimately UE. So are people and what they do.
Reiki is something you can do. Reiki Practitioners will declare hammer to
anvil, that Reiki canot be used for harm.
Depends on your point of view.
Reiki used for harm, will cause harm. Reiki used for support, will cause
support.
ARGH! cries the community.
I remind us all, Reiki is not a thing, nor a technique but a way of life, at
least that's what the Gokai states. "Do these things and you're doing
Reiki". So doing these things makes you a nice person to be around and all
that. Which incidently will result in healing forces of some kind or
another, IF the client is at home to healing, consciously, subconsciously,
superconsciously yadda, yadda. It seems we all die eventually...
...what is he going on about?, groans the community.
I ask you to think about the words Good and Evil on one hand and the words
Benefit and Harm or maybe the words Comfort and Suffering on the other hand.
Suffering and Evil are equated in some Views, in others they aren't. I think
you can get my meaning there...
A couple of years ago, I suffered from Pain (capital P). In the course of
time, they slit my belly open three times. I suffered a lot more pain and a
few other things as well, best not mentioned. Eventually I managed to come
home and crawl into bed and feel really, really sorry for myself for longer
than I cared to. And eventually I announced, I'm back! And here I am.
Okay...
UE made me
UE made me sick (yes it did, cause I was told in no uncertain terms, that if
I tried to help someone, I would take on a part of his karmic body plans,
which I did, so there! Huh!)
UE healed me (the surgeons did a good job too! But as it was touch and go
and a matter of fate for a few weeks, I'd say UE and the homoepathic things
I took, when the non-homoepathic things didn't do the whole job, did their
part)
UE was in the cause, UE was in the cure.
Originally there was a person's curse, which is UE gone way past its
sell-by-date.
UE helped me sail around that cliff too.
UE planned the whole damn thing.
UE taught me more about myself, than I knew before. I need to retype this:
UE TAUGHT ME A LOT MORE ABOUT MYSELF AND ALL THE REST OF THE WHOLE SHEBANG
THAN I KNEW BEFORE.
I am still around to tell the tale. UE again...
So, Mike, tell me, what is the answer?
The answer is perhaps another question, perhaps a parable, perhaps a YES-NO,
perhaps none of these...
I'm asking YOU to tell us all YOUR answer.
Thanks for reading this to the end :-)
Garry Williams
<snip>
> Thanks for reading this to the end :-)
I can't believe I ate the whole thing! <g,d&r>
Seriously, though, kudos! Well said!
Garry
Garry Williams
<snippage>
> I ask you to think about the words Good and Evil on one hand and the words
> Benefit and Harm or maybe the words Comfort and Suffering on the other hand.
Add two more: Duality and Non-Duality ("Not One-ness" and "One-ness"?
why do these things always seem to come in twos? especially if there's
only one? <scratches head>)
Love and Light,
Garry
suzee
One coin has two sides....
Ponder that one, grasshopper.
sue
Garry Williams
> One coin has two sides....
...and there is coin and not-coin...
> Ponder that one, grasshopper.
back atchya ;-)
Garry
MikeH
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPPPPPPPPPPPP
Series if answers ends here.
A happy Mike shuts up here.
_/\_
Garry Williams
"Let 'do as thou wilt' be the whole of the law."
Love and Light,
Garry
pr
"Garry Williams" <gdw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cb2a9dd9-bf3c-4677...@c1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
<snippage>
My news group feed seems to work again for a change. Let's see how long.
To aim for Oneness is being ignorant.
To speak of oneness is non-sensical.
Oneness just doesn't go far enough.
That is why you have problems.
It is time to abandon this idea of Oneness, totally, completely.
It is like a poison that has crept into virtually every spiritual corner.
When in the past people spoke of it, few had a clue what it means.
Nowadays, where everyone seems to know what it is, or thinks
that they know enough to waffle about it, it has become one of
the most debilitating ideas.
Peter
Garry Williams
Well said! The problem is that as soon as you have named it, you have
devolved into two-ness, ie, that which you have named, and that which is
not what you have named. The problem here, then, seems to be the act of
naming. So, the naming, the better! Or have I done it again? Oops. ;-)
Love and Light,
Garry
Garry Williams
<snippety snip>
> So, the naming, the better!
That should read: "...the less naming, the better!"
Garry
MikeH
MikeH
"Garry Williams" <gdw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11...@earthlink.net...
pr
Oneness is ok as long as one waves at it while passing.
When one uses it as a destination, or thinks one has
arrived, one is no further than the person who still
thinks in multitudes..
Peter
Garry Williams
Oneness is not separate from you or from whatever it is you think you're
doing that you wrongly believe is separate from Oneness. :-)
Love and Light,
Garry
--
Garry