Miracles .

Hi Paul,
“for that we need to utilise our other aspects of consciousness” and if this is right, then it makes no change to what I have said, it should still be explainable. No one can consistently drop back to a position of ‘this cannot be explained but it works’ without putting the whole thing in the realm of faith. If there is no explanation then it is unexplainable – and that renders it questionable. This is not about my mind set, it is just honesty and integrity.
We can change things if we work at it, we can focus on a goal and by diligent work and taking opportunities make it happen, this is not about consciousness, it is about ambition and motivation. If there is some way to ‘create’ what we want, to make it manifest without working for it then that lies in the realms of the supernatural. If it only requires a change of consciousness then why do you not have everything you want yet?

“No, it is not a faith, that is a belief in something with no substance, these things have been researched within the laboratory” – and this may well be true, but instead of showing what you mean, you say that I should research, and that it is my mind that is closed. If there is evidence, and your statements say that there is, then what is it? if there is not then your statements are nothing more than faith or wishes. If this is the basis of your system, if these ‘facts’ underlie the core of your structure then they should have substance. So what evidence is there that water has consciousness?

The point is that reiki is for me something that works, I now understand it and I can see what is going on – that was my point. If I had just relied on what I was taught, or just the perceived and taught process I would not understand it though I would be able to perform it. Although the original attunement was what showed me ‘how to’, it is now no longer relevant to me – I now understand the process itself.

“In order for placebo to take over something, then that has to be created by the individual who is receiving whatever they are receiving, for that to happen, they would have to understand the non communicated information that is being given to them” – this is just not correct, although I give you that it was said with confidence. The whole point about placebo is that it is based on expectations, and not on how it is achieved, there is no understanding necessary. This goes to the heart of understanding the placebo effect – and is almost the opposite of what you have said, no understanding is necessary, it is an inbuilt reaction – tried and tested as such.

“whether you understand it or not is immaterial” – agreed – but the fact that you do not understand it is more the point.
love
chris

Hi Chris

“for that we need to utilise our other aspects of consciousness” and if this is right, then it makes no change to what I have said, it should still be explainable. No one can consistently drop back to a position of ‘this cannot be explained but it works’ without putting the whole thing in the realm of faith. If there is no explanation then it is unexplainable – and that renders it questionable. This is not about my mind set, it is just honesty and integrity.
We can change things if we work at it, we can focus on a goal and by diligent work and taking opportunities make it happen, this is not about consciousness, it is about ambition and motivation. If there is some way to ‘create’ what we want, to make it manifest without working for it then that lies in the realms of the supernatural. If it only requires a change of consciousness then why do you not have everything you want yet?

No I do not say that it can't be explained, I have explained to you over and over, that everything starts and finishes with a thought, but this does not fit into your understanding so it must be wrong, you say that we can work towards our goals but that has nothing to do with consciousness, we cannot work toward anything without firstly having a thought to drive the process, but even when we have moved towards gaining what we have chosen to do, it still requires another thought to complete the quest, everything starts and finishes with a thought.

However what we think we are creating and what is manifesting because of our underlying thought patterns and beliefs which we are not aware of, are often two completely different things, we work to make the different aspects of consciousness harmonise and work together in the creation process, rather than being in conflict with each other.

I do not perceive that I am lacking anything within my existence.

“No, it is not a faith, that is a belief in something with no substance, these things have been researched within the laboratory” – and this may well be true, but instead of showing what you mean, you say that I should research, and that it is my mind that is closed. If there is evidence, and your statements say that there is, then what is it? if there is not then your statements are nothing more than faith or wishes. If this is the basis of your system, if these ‘facts’ underlie the core of your structure then they should have substance. So what evidence is there that water has consciousness?

I would suggest you start with the thread that I put up on this forum about healing through consciousness and taking away the rituals and healing techniques, they are both in the Reiki and energy healing forum.

It would not matter how I explained it to you, you always reject anything which does not work the way that you think it should do, irrespective of whether you understand what you are talking about or not, your mind is closed to other possibilities, otherwise you would understand what I have been saying to you for the last few months in the hope that you would gain a measure of understanding, you might not agree with my understanding, but you would understand.

The consciousness of water can be programmed the same as the consciousness contained within a human being can be programmed, all is one and everything starts and finishes with a thought.

The point is that reiki is for me something that works, I now understand it and I can see what is going on – that was my point. If I had just relied on what I was taught, or just the perceived and taught process I would not understand it though I would be able to perform it. Although the original attunement was what showed me ‘how to’, it is now no longer relevant to me – I now understand the process itself.

As you say the original Reiki attunement which allowed you to perform Reiki without you understanding it, is no longer relevant, that is true, as soon as you decided what it was that you were doing and how you were going to perform it within your preconceived understanding, you ceased to perform Reiki, you now perform whatever it is that you perceive as healing, but it is definitely not Reiki which is a prescribed method of healing which was designed to heal people and set them free.

“In order for placebo to take over something, then that has to be created by the individual who is receiving whatever they are receiving, for that to happen, they would have to understand the non communicated information that is being given to them” – this is just not correct, although I give you that it was said with confidence. The whole point about placebo is that it is based on expectations, and not on how it is achieved, there is no understanding necessary. This goes to the heart of understanding the placebo effect – and is almost the opposite of what you have said, no understanding is necessary, it is an inbuilt reaction – tried and tested as such.

I usually give them something that is completely different to any preconceived expectations that they come with, that is assuming that they came with any, I usually ask them to come with an open mind and to be ready to embrace whatever changes unfold within the session, I do not know what is required until I start.

“whether you understand it or not is immaterial” – agreed – but the fact that you do not understand it is more the point.

No. the point here is that no matter how many different ways that I or other people outline their understandings to you, you will never embrace them, you will alway argue that our understanding does not match your own, even though you are very careful not to outline your own understandings, or hide them behind the Reiki modality which has nothing in common with what you say or do.

I understand very well what I do, it is not my problem that you choose not to understand what I have said to you and attempt to use chalk to disprove that cheese does not function in the same way as chalk, it is a pointless argument and I am sure that other members are sick of reading post after post which just goes around in pointless circles because you choose not to see things in the way that they are given to you.

I think we have exhausted this topic, I can't give you anything that will fit your current mind set or belief system as it is the opposite of mine, we both work to create completely different things within ourselves and the people we work with, so I will wish you well on your journey and leave it at that.

Hi Paul,
“for that we need to utilise our other aspects of consciousness” and if this is right, then it makes no change to what I have said, it should still be explainable. No one can consistently drop back to a position of ‘this cannot be explained but it works’ without putting the whole thing in the realm of faith. If there is no explanation then it is unexplainable – and that renders it questionable. This is not about my mind set, it is just honesty and integrity.

By that definition, everything is just faith, including science, as nothing can be ultimately explained.

“No, it is not a faith, that is a belief in something with no substance, these things have been researched within the laboratory” – and this may well be true, but instead of showing what you mean, you say that I should research, and that it is my mind that is closed. If there is evidence, and your statements say that there is, then what is it?

The evidence is seen through experience, not something you can just put down in writing. You do seem to insist that "evidence" is just given to you, but you don't seem to want to do anything yourself to see that evidence. There is plenty of research that has been done into consciousness by scientists, but just because some 'other' scientists say it's pseudoscience (because they're stuck within their own self limiting beliefs) then that's not good enough for some people.

if there is not then your statements are nothing more than faith or wishes. If this is the basis of your system, if these ‘facts’ underlie the core of your structure then they should have substance. So what evidence is there that water has consciousness?

Lots of research has been done by Dr Masaru Emoto, but of course he's also been dismissed as producing pseudoscience by the material realist scientists, because obviously their doctorates are better than his. It's just science holding back science because they're stuck in their old ways. There are plenty of good scientists out there researching the connection between quantum physics, spirituality, and consciousness etc. but unfortunately they've got to fight against the old skool professors who aren't interested unless it shows electrons going in circular orbits around a nucleus.

The point is that reiki is for me something that works, I now understand it and I can see what is going on – that was my point. If I had just relied on what I was taught, or just the perceived and taught process I would not understand it though I would be able to perform it. Although the original attunement was what showed me ‘how to’, it is now no longer relevant to me – I now understand the process itself.

Great, so you shouldn't have any problem understanding that Paul's system can also work, just that you haven't actually tried it. Oh, and can I ask that you provide me with some evidence as to how Reiki works.

“In order for placebo to take over something, then that has to be created by the individual who is receiving whatever they are receiving, for that to happen, they would have to understand the non communicated information that is being given to them” – this is just not correct, although I give you that it was said with confidence.

"this is just not correct" seems to be said with confidence also, but what evidence do you have to be able to say that? The non-communicated information is the principle of nonlocality in quantum physics or as Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance" 🙂 Science has clearly shown, experimentally, that such non-communicated information can be achieved.

The whole point about placebo is that it is based on expectations, and not on how it is achieved, there is no understanding necessary.

Not necessarily. People can take a placebo treatement and still expect that they will not get better. Excpectations are in the conscious thinking mind, not the unconscious or one-consciousness.

This goes to the heart of understanding the placebo effect – and is almost the opposite of what you have said, no understanding is necessary, it is an inbuilt reaction – tried and tested as such.

That's the view of the material realists anyway, who believe everything is in the brain.

“whether you understand it or not is immaterial” – agreed – but the fact that you do not understand it is more the point.

Your claiming to know the minds of others again Chris. You cannot know Pauls understanding of anything, and I would say that comes across as quite rude to say something like that.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Hi Paul,
What you actually said was that “all is one and everything starts and finishes with a thought.” – and “Everything starts and finishes with a thought within this physical reality, in the oneness everything is thought or the fullness of self, just pure consciousness (thought)” - not that an action that we are considering, or some ambition that we aspire to starts and finishes with a thought. This is very different. So simply saying that this kind of statement explains something is not what it does – it makes a statement – take for instance “just pure consciousness (thought)” – now that is another statement, and yet if it is correct then it needs to be out together with the idea (wish) that you have that water is has consciousness – the two do not sit well together. An explanation would make clear how these all interact, and why, and not just make some kind of proclamation that they do. This is what understanding brings, not the ability to make assertions but the reasons and background why the assertions are correct.

“I do not perceive that I am lacking anything within my existence” – but you still want to do more with your system, you said that you needed funding for instance, so why not simply create it?

“It would not matter how I explained it to you, you always reject anything which does not work the way that you think it should do” – this is fundamental, when you make statements there is no explanation, no workings and supporting premises, you just make a statement and expect that it stands as true, and yet when examined it is often flawed, unprovable or even incorrect – this is not an explanation – it is a sermon.

“The consciousness of water can be programmed the same as the consciousness contained within a human being can be programmed, all is one and everything starts and finishes with a thought.” – and this is another prime example of this – no evidence, no means to back this up, just a sermonic repetition of what you want someone to (accept without question) ‘understand’. The only way I would ever accept the statement above would be by a leap of faith, and that is not what I am willing to do, if you cannot explain these statements, and there is no evidence for them then they just lack weight.

“you ceased to perform Reiki, you now perform whatever it is that you perceive as healing, but it is definitely not Reiki which is a prescribed method of healing which as designed to heal people and set them free.” – nope – it is still reiki, but the understanding has allowed me to separate out the real from the ‘wishes’, the actual parts of reiki from the ‘suppositions’, the honest from the bogus, and the real from the faith.

“I do not know what is required until I start.” – that has no bearing on placebo, for it is only what they want or believe that will be activated by the placeboic reaction. If you instil some expectation in them then that may well be the result, or what they were expecting – this is the nature of placebo – nothing to do with an individual healing practise. Interesting that you ‘know what is required’ rather than what they require – but I’ve covered that before.

You keep on saying that I do not understand what you do, and that is true, though I have got some ideas, I’ve looked at many processes, for example, as I’ve said as I worked with someone from the craft for couple of years, however it is actually your inability to explain what you do, the way that you make statements that must be taken as gospel, that are supposed to be self-evident and yet have no substance or support that is more to the point, this is the circular part of this thread. My inability to do what you want me to do lies with the fact that I have trouble accepting things people say without trying to understand them, I do not accept them on faith grounds, and when something sounds wrong or bogus I usually find that it is – yet when I hear the truth, when I see what is honest or correct I usually know that it is – I am fairly good at sifting out the real form the fabricated, and explanation and evidence are the key to this porcess.
love
chris

Hi Giles,
When someone makes a claim it is reasonable to expect that they can produce some kind of backup for that claim. “"evidence" is just given to you, but you don't seem to want to do anything yourself to see that evidence” – and here you seem to read my mind and see that i have not investigated – yet I have and so far have found no credible evidence. You are right that many scientists have labelled what has been produced so far as pseudoscience – usually with good reason – and that is what I have found. This is not about closed minds – that is just another of your ‘blame’ mind games (just as “because they're stuck within their own self limiting beliefs” is) , I have looked and see no credible evidence – if this is os obvious why can no references that stand up to scrutiny be produced?

“Lots of research has been done by Dr Masaru Emoto” – and he had some interesting results – but none of it confirmed that water had consciousness, just that it can respond to outside stimuli of the right form.
“There are plenty of good scientists out there researching the connection between quantum physics, spirituality, and consciousness”” – yes – and when they really get a handle on things we may well se some results. I don’t think being dismissive (actually bordering on rude) of many of the scientist exhibits anything other than a closed mind, all input has some value.

“Great, so you shouldn't have any problem understanding that Paul's system can also work” – that I have never questioned, I have asked how, not if. If I had some kind of evidence that it did not work I would have said so. You seem to be reading my mind here.

Oh, and can I ask that you provide me with some evidence as to how Reiki works.” – nope – that is why I said that I think I have figured it out, and that is why I said it was similar to Paul’s process in that way – as far as I can see it is about electrical vibrations that I have written about in the forum as being the song of life, we sing the way to wellness by example. I have clearly stated that there is no real evidence that reiki works, but that I have seen enough to be personally convinced.

Extensive work into placebo has shown that the patient responds with what they think is the expected response – I know of no trials where that response was not previously communicated and was
“non-communicated information” was used – if you have some I am interested.
“people can take a placebo treatement and still expect that they will not get better” – yes – and they usually don’t as this is what they expect – I agree that these expectations are at many levels, not just the logical. This is the nature of placebo.

“Your claiming to know the minds of others again Chris” – haaha – no – what I have written and asked was based on his words – that is why I asked for explanations and not just statements that are said as if they must be accepted without question. If someone makes a statement like that it should be able to stand up to reasonable challenge not just accepted as some kind of faith.

If anyone can separate the real from the illusory in subjects like this it will have to be a group like this, for no one else will spend time to examine it in detail – but if we are to do this than it has to be done correctly – just accepting without question just makes it appear wishful and potentially accepting of the bogus – how does that advance our knowledge?
love
chris

Hi Giles,
When someone makes a claim it is reasonable to expect that they can produce some kind of backup for that claim. “"evidence" is just given to you, but you don't seem to want to do anything yourself to see that evidence” – and here you seem to read my mind and see that i have not investigated – yet I have and so far have found no credible evidence.

My apologies. I don't recall you saying that you had attended one of Paul's classes or healing sessions.

You are right that many scientists have labelled what has been produced so far as pseudoscience – usually with good reason – and that is what I have found.

So, you've performed the experiments yourself and found them to be false? Have to told the scientists that performed the experiments where they've gone wrong then, cos I'm sure they'd be interested. Or perhaps it's labelled as pseudoscience without good reason? Perhaps it's the self limiting beliefs of those scientists who choose not to try and understand.

This is not about closed minds – that is just another of your ‘blame’ mind games (just as “because they're stuck within their own self limiting beliefs” is)

You insult me by suggesting that I'm 'blaming' again when I've said many times I'm not. Observing that some people have closed minds is just that, an observation. If I'm not allowed to state my observations, then I'm sorry that I can't subscribe to your superior knowledge and I should just shut up it seems.

I have looked and see no credible evidence – if this is os obvious why can no references that stand up to scrutiny be produced?

Because your idea of "looking" is so very limited. You want something produced in writing that you can read and instantly understand, that has also been peer reviewed by some scientist. You fail to acknowledge that "looking" requires more than just a written word and the approval of someone else who is likely to have limited beliefs. You can only truly scrutinise it if you were to get involved and do it yourself. You've shown no evidence of having done that, so of course you will never see the evidence you seek.

“Lots of research has been done by Dr Masaru Emoto” – and he had some interesting results – but none of it confirmed that water had consciousness, just that it can respond to outside stimuli of the right form.

If you believe consciousness is seperate rather than everything containing consciousness. Once you seperate then you cannot influence and the fact that it's influenced by consciousness indicates that it contains consciousness. Of course, you'll choose not to be able to see that because your idea of consciousness is something that is limited within the human brain-mind.

“There are plenty of good scientists out there researching the connection between quantum physics, spirituality, and consciousness”” – yes – and when they really get a handle on things we may well se some results. I don’t think being dismissive (actually bordering on rude) of many of the scientist exhibits anything other than a closed mind, all input has some value.

They have had results. Read some of the literature and research done by some of those scientists.

“Great, so you shouldn't have any problem understanding that Paul's system can also work” – that I have never questioned, I have asked how, not if. If I had some kind of evidence that it did not work I would have said so. You seem to be reading my mind here.

How is only known when you experience it. You've not chosen to experience it (unless I am still mistaken), so how can you find out how.

Oh, and can I ask that you provide me with some evidence as to how Reiki works.” – nope – that is why I said that I think I have figured it out, and that is why I said it was similar to Paul’s process in that way – as far as I can see it is about electrical vibrations that I have written about in the forum as being the song of life, we sing the way to wellness by example. I have clearly stated that there is no real evidence that reiki works, but that I have seen enough to be personally convinced.

How have you seen these electrical vibrations?

“Your claiming to know the minds of others again Chris” – haaha – no – what I have written and asked was based on his words – that is why I asked for explanations and not just statements that are said as if they must be accepted without question. If someone makes a statement like that it should be able to stand up to reasonable challenge not just accepted as some kind of faith.

How can you learn to fly a plane without flying lessons? People can explain all the theory they like in words for you, but unless you actually get in the plane and fly it, you'll never know you can do it.

If anyone can separate the real from the illusory in subjects like this it will have to be a group like this, for no one else will spend time to examine it in detail – but if we are to do this than it has to be done correctly – just accepting without question just makes it appear wishful and potentially accepting of the bogus – how does that advance our knowledge?

Who is accepting without question?
We have personal experience of the things we talk of because we've put it into practice. There's no wishful thinking involved and no faith (except the faith to try something we've not done before and see for ourselves if it's true or not). I think your idea of "doing it correctly" is trying to examine the scientific experiment from the outside and explain it without taking account of the fact that the observer of the experiment influences it (and that's a scientific fact - proven by experiment!).

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Hi Chris

This is my final post to you on this topic. You appear to have some form of understanding that I am working with some form of electrical vibration, this is inaccurate. I have told you repeatedly that I perform Gaia-Now transformational healing and personal development work within and through consciousness, consciousness is non physical, there are no electrical vibrations or any other type of electrical anything involved, just consciousness.

When this understanding is utilised in an open and nonjudgmental way by a Gaia-Now practitioner it creates transformational healing. It is used to release people from their self imposed doubts, fears, judgements, sufferings and self limiting thought patterns and beliefs. Practitioners consciously uproot people's attachments to past events and future fears; they empower the people who receive it to become true to themselves and live in the moment, to get into the driving seat and steer a course that they choose for themselves, that is meaningful for them.

You keep on assuming that I can't explain to you the principles and practice of what I do and give you the tools to empower you to do it, this is actually not true, I am simply not prepared to give it to you or put up this information upon an open forum.

Hi Giles,
When someone makes a claim it is reasonable to expect that they can produce some kind of backup for that claim. “"evidence" is just given to you, but you don't seem to want to do anything yourself to see that evidence” – and here you seem to read my mind and see that i have not investigated – yet I have and so far have found no credible evidence. You are right that many scientists have labelled what has been produced so far as pseudoscience – usually with good reason – and that is what I have found. This is not about closed minds – that is just another of your ‘blame’ mind games (just as “because they're stuck within their own self limiting beliefs” is) , I have looked and see no credible evidence – if this is os obvious why can no references that stand up to scrutiny be produced?

“Lots of research has been done by Dr Masaru Emoto” – and he had some interesting results – but none of it confirmed that water had consciousness, just that it can respond to outside stimuli of the right form.
“There are plenty of good scientists out there researching the connection between quantum physics, spirituality, and consciousness”” – yes – and when they really get a handle on things we may well se some results. I don’t think being dismissive (actually bordering on rude) of many of the scientist exhibits anything other than a closed mind, all input has some value.

“Great, so you shouldn't have any problem understanding that Paul's system can also work” – that I have never questioned, I have asked how, not if. If I had some kind of evidence that it did not work I would have said so. You seem to be reading my mind here.

Oh, and can I ask that you provide me with some evidence as to how Reiki works.” – nope – that is why I said that I think I have figured it out, and that is why I said it was similar to Paul’s process in that way – as far as I can see it is about electrical vibrations that I have written about in the forum as being the song of life, we sing the way to wellness by example. I have clearly stated that there is no real evidence that reiki works, but that I have seen enough to be personally convinced.

Extensive work into placebo has shown that the patient responds with what they think is the expected response – I know of no trials where that response was not previously communicated and was
“non-communicated information” was used – if you have some I am interested.
“people can take a placebo treatement and still expect that they will not get better” – yes – and they usually don’t as this is what they expect – I agree that these expectations are at many levels, not just the logical. This is the nature of placebo.

“Your claiming to know the minds of others again Chris” – haaha – no – what I have written and asked was based on his words – that is why I asked for explanations and not just statements that are said as if they must be accepted without question. If someone makes a statement like that it should be able to stand up to reasonable challenge not just accepted as some kind of faith.

If anyone can separate the real from the illusory in subjects like this it will have to be a group like this, for no one else will spend time to examine it in detail – but if we are to do this than it has to be done correctly – just accepting without question just makes it appear wishful and potentially accepting of the bogus – how does that advance our knowledge?
love
chris