To: K-list
Recieved: 1999/05/14 04:14
Subject: Re: [K-list] Reiki and Kundalini
From: Domagoj Klepac
On 1999/05/14 04:14, Domagoj Klepac posted thus to the K-list:
"Santo Chawandi" <santo_chATnospamhotmail.com> bravely stated the following:
> I wonder how and when Reiki concept starts to deviates from its original
> source - Sinsei Mikao Usui.
>
> Reiki is a devine energy that channels through the crown cakra to the heart
> cakra and delivered to the hand/palm cakra for healing purposes. A person
> without K activated can attained this energy instantly by receiving
> attunement / shaktipat by a master using a proven method formulated by Sinse
> Usui.
I've been a good boy and did my homework - here is the definition of
Reiki i found on Reiki sites. So, this is what Reikists tell that Reiki
is:
"Reiki (pronounced ray-key) is, in its simplest translation, universal
life energy. It is referred to in other cultures as "chi", "prana", or
'spirit'. It is the life force that exists in all things. The practice
of Reiki is the art and science of channeling this universal life
energy, or force, to promote spiritual, mental, and physical
well-being."
Now, what does universal life energy means? What does chi mean? What
does prana mean? It means "the force that gives us life". Without our
pranic bodies, we would be corpses. Prana gives life to matter.
By using prana many things can be achieved. Karate and Aikido experts
use manipulation of prana for fight, Reikists use prana for healing
purposes, drunks use highly concentrated prana in alcohol to get drunk.
You can use prana to recover from cancer, to levitate things or to kill
someone.
You can suck prana from your crown chakra, or you can inhale it through
the air, or from the earth below your feet. Also, you can exhale it
through your nose or focus it throuth your hands. It makes no
difference, it's still prana. It doesn't affect astral or mental levels.
If Reiki does influence feelings and thoughts and spirit development in
any way other than that, than Reiki is not based on prana (chi). Someone
is wrong here, either me (pretty unlikely, for everything I wrote about
prana here are the most basic lessons which are widely accepted by
anyone who knows something about prana), either those who say that Reiki
is something more than manipulation of prana. If it is, then that means
two things: first, Reikists definition of Reiki is wrong, and second, if
they are unable do define what they do, then it is highly questionable
if they do what they do correctly and without dangers. Of course, if
they do anything, which I think that they do.
> Reiki is activated from the top by shaktipat, while K is from the base of
> the spine.
Wrong. Kundalini shaktipat means a lot more than "activating something
from base of the spine". It means activating <some force> which starts
cleanising process from the base of the spine (muladdhara chakra). When
you give shaktipat initiation to someone, you merge your higher bodies
and are connected to him in a most close way two human beeings can be
connected. If he learns something, you learn it to, instantly - if you
learn something, he learns it too (figuratively speaking). Awakening K
to somebody means transferring his karma to you; and so on.
Reiki doesn't come even close to real spiritual Teacher/Student
relationship. If Reiking someone meant making him your spiritual
Student, than any Reikist would have a whole bunch of Students. And to
have Student, to be responsible for him, means that you have to work
through both yours and his karma. Having two students means having to
clean karma for three people. And people in general can't take care for
even their own karma. That's why Kundalini shaktipat and such things
cannot be taken lightly.
> Reiki attuned person can utilize reiki energy for cleansing of K
> channels.
This I agree with.
> K energy is more on spiritual awareness and psychics abilities. I
> think anybody well sensitive to energy fields could feel the difference of
> various energies. What does that matter, anyway ?
I already talked about this - Kundalini is not an energy. When you feel
prana going through your spine, that means that prana is moving in you,
but it's not Kundalini, it's prana movement, which is one of the efects
of Kundalini. If you get hit on your head, there is the difference
between the one who hit you and the hit itself.
> Isn't it better to experience it rather than analyzing it intellectually ?
> Everybody has his own unique experince and that doesn't mean others'
> experience are not true. Logic can sometimes be tricky in analyzing the
> spiritual world - it could go into endless loop...
It's nice to experience things, but it's not all about experience. For
example, let's say that I have cancer. I go to Reiki therapy, and my
cancer dissapears. But after some time, I get AIDS and eventually die
from it.
Now, the second scenario. I'm Kundalini awakened and I also get cancer.
During time, I learn to care about myself, learn not to eat fast food,
change a way of living into a non-stressful way. I learn to look around
me, enjoy the life and not pressure things. Eventually, my cancer stops
growing, and although it remains there, I live happily until I'm 100
years old, and then die in my sleep or something.
My karma was in both cases to get cancer because fast living, fast food,
and the way of life. That cancer was sign for me to change things; sign
that something was badly wrong. There was no way I could avoid karma.
But I could heal consequences with Reiki. But Reiki doesn't treat
causes, and it doesn't heal somebody's karma. Kundalini does, it makes
people change. Reiki is just a nice toy, which can be educational, but
prana is just another form of energy, like electric energy or kinetic
energy. Karma and Kundalini are not energies, they are something a lot
deeper.
And prana itself also actually isn't energy, prana is matter of a bit
higher plane of existance than physical, but it's convinient to call
her energy in a world of modern physics where all that exists is either
matter or energy, and we can't even imagine that there can be anything
else. (But never mind, it's not relevant for this discussion).
So, basically, I'm not talking about logic (I was just using it to make
a point). I'm talking about what Reiki is, and about what Kundalini is.
There is a big difference between those two. I agree that we could just
say, OK, Kundalini and Reiki are the same, there is no point in using
logic when dealing with something spiritual, and let's...
> Let's concentrate on how to utilize these energies for the betterment
> of mankind...
...but that's not it. They simply aren't the same, and I think this list
is here to learn something from other people, not to agree with somebody
or prove your point.
(And, just in case, please all, cut the crap about "how do you know that
you're right about this", "this could be your interpretation", "fine, if
you want to argue, have it your own way", I'm pretty sure in what I say
before I dare to say anything, and I think I said a few arguments as
well.)
Domchi
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.