Hi! Ok. So I believe in Reiki a little differently and I wanted to see if there was anyone else here that felt the same way and maybe also knows any books or articles on this.
My theory with Reiki is more physically based with our energy. I don't use the theory of channeling universal energy or a higher up energy through my hands to heal or sending Reiki energy through time and space(although i have an open mind about it since this universe is so enormous and we are still learning new things about it all the time)
I definitely believe that we all have energy since everything around us, including our bodies itself is made up of atoms and energy and have the ability to use this energy . But I see Reiki as more of a grounding modality and as a sort of silent guided meditation for my clients. I am still dabbling in what all Reiki means to me and testing different ways to use it. Does anyone else feel this way? Or use Reiki in more of a science-y way?
Kind of... being an Atheist I don't subscribe to the "angels" or "spirits" or the "guided by God" things that some people believe Reiki to be. I'm most definitely a more scientific mind.
However, I wouldn't say that Reiki is just a grounding modality or some sort of guided meditation.
It's obviously a huge topic, and I've not time just yet to go in to details (maybe that will come out in continued discussion), but consider this...
Science has long considered the principles of quantum theory, and experiments (and even today's technologies) are evidence of the existence of such quantum principles. One of the quantum principles is quantum entanglement (or as Einstein referred to it "spooky action at a distance"). That means that a quantum particle in one place can influence the quantum particle in another place instantaneously (the speed of light doesn't even come in to it - apparently). As you say, everything about us and around is us energy, so there is reason to consider that our intention (thoughts, brainwaves... aka energy) can have direct influence on other energy anywhere in the universe. Hence it's perfectly scientific to consider that Reiki could be directed through space.
As for directing it through time... there is only the present time, but the existence of ourselves now is based on what has happened before, so "healing" something in the present moment is (or can be), effectively healing something from the past, or at least the existing in the present moment of what the past events are now manifesting as.
Thank you for the reply! I feel the same being an Atheist myself. Being in my very early 20s, I am trying to figure out myself and what all I believe or feel and this is definitely one of those things! I am open to possiblities and what you said made sense about the present energies influencing others. I will take some time to look further into quantum theory. I have recently become more intersted in it. Again, thanks for your insight!
Kind of... being an Atheist I don't subscribe to the "angels" or "spirits" or the "guided by God" things that some people believe Reiki to be. I'm most definitely a more scientific mind.
However, I wouldn't say that Reiki is just a grounding modality or some sort of guided meditation.
It's obviously a huge topic, and I've not time just yet to go in to details (maybe that will come out in continued discussion), but consider this...
Science has long considered the principles of quantum theory, and experiments (and even today's technologies) are evidence of the existence of such quantum principles. One of the quantum principles is quantum entanglement (or as Einstein referred to it "spooky action at a distance"). That means that a quantum particle in one place can influence the quantum particle in another place instantaneously (the speed of light doesn't even come in to it - apparently). As you say, everything about us and around is us energy, so there is reason to consider that our intention (thoughts, brainwaves... aka energy) can have direct influence on other energy anywhere in the universe. Hence it's perfectly scientific to consider that Reiki could be directed through space.
As for directing it through time... there is only the present time, but the existence of ourselves now is based on what has happened before, so "healing" something in the present moment is (or can be), effectively healing something from the past, or at least the existing in the present moment of what the past events are now manifesting as.
Thank you for the reply! I feel the same being an Atheist myself. Being in my very early 20s, I am trying to figure out myself and what all I believe or feel and this is definitely one of those things! I am open to possiblities and what you said made sense about the present energies influencing others. I will take some time to look further into quantum theory. I have recently become more intersted in it. Again, thanks for your insight!
[ just so you're aware, like all new members, your account is on moderation, so your posts won't appear straight away until a moderator approves it, which depends when we're around - after a few days the moderation will automatically lift and you'll be able to post freely, set yourself a signature and use the private messaging facility too. Thought I'd let you know as I deleted the duplicate post you made here 😉 ]
As a scientist (I am trained as a pharmacist) I found the whole concept of reiki totally bizarre when I first trained in it. But my science side knows e=mc2.....everything is energy and that includes me. So I do take a scientific approach to reiki. To me it makes much more sense that I draw on energy from outside me, than that comes from me. My energy is limited, ....and also my energy may be be corrupted by whatever is wrong with me....and that would have a negative effect on my patient.
As a scientist (I am trained as a pharmacist) I found the whole concept of reiki totally bizarre when I first trained in it. But my science side knows e=mc2.....everything is energy and that includes me. So I do take a scientific approach to reiki. To me it makes much more sense that I draw on energy from outside me, than that comes from me. My energy is limited, ....and also my energy may be be corrupted by whatever is wrong with me....and that would have a negative effect on my patient.
Would you say that you see your energy and the energy outside of you as being separate? Does not energy flow through everything?
Hi! Ok. So I believe in Reiki a little differently and I wanted to see if there was anyone else here that felt the same way and maybe also knows any books or articles on this.
My theory with Reiki is more physically based with our energy. I don't use the theory of channeling universal energy or a higher up energy through my hands to heal or sending Reiki energy through time and space(although i have an open mind about it since this universe is so enormous and we are still learning new things about it all the time)
I definitely believe that we all have energy since everything around us, including our bodies itself is made up of atoms and energy and have the ability to use this energy . But I see Reiki as more of a grounding modality and as a sort of silent guided meditation for my clients. I am still dabbling in what all Reiki means to me and testing different ways to use it. Does anyone else feel this way? Or use Reiki in more of a science-y way?
Does science say it's all energy? I thought that was understanding arrived at by diving in the depth of being. However if science is adventurous enough to go there, it is bound to arrive at the same conclusion. If it still hasn't, it only means that it is yet to get there...only a matter of time.
If mysticism|spirituality is understood at a very deep level, it's pure science. There is science that is arrived at with knowing rather than conventionally approved methods and experiments. Rather unknowing is the very inner-science that all Life finds its source from. Unknowingbis the mother of all knowing there is.
Science delved deeply, also becomes mystical. In other words, things are interchangeable....boundaries diasppear. Paraxoxes come into action, contraries merge. It's all how deeply we likevto lose ourselves- not necessarily in spirituality alone, but in any chosen direction.
Science is only discovering what is....and that's exactly what spirituality is. Revealing what is....what was hiding in oblivion is brought into our awareness....then it creeps into our experience. .
Life is a huge discovery, personal as well as of the entire race and entire creation....our little mind twigs and tunes into the mystery now and again...There is a Science to Life....and the little faculty we call science is just a minute part of the grand mysterious explosion of the play called Life
As I understand it there are different forms of energy, but I find it hard to believe that they don't all originate from a single source. We are surrounded by and are comprised of potential energy. How we interface with this potential energy can result in us having a physical experience. It could be an effect such as growth, or healing or assist in our "spiritual" development.
I'm also not too sure of the importance of the Quantum approach. Einstein and others did give us some valuable insights and formulae, but demonstration of these can be seen without a sophisticated Quantum understanding. Medical science itself is changing direction. Stem cell behaviour and the realisation that all our cells seem to have the potential to act as stem cells and have the capability under the influence of our own energy (thoughts) to re write our Genes and hence the body.
If the science hold true, a human thought (one type of energy) will activate the brain (another type of energy) to generate the signals that activate the protein (another type of energy) in our cells to repair or replace any damaged or missing parts that the body relies on.
The potential for energy seems endless.
Not everything is energy. Everything has energy.
What is your definition of energy, if the brain is energy? If protein is energy?
Not everything is energy. Everything has energy.
What is your definition of energy, if the brain is energy? If protein is energy?
I suppose the only definition of energy that I can think of is, "that which cannot be destroyed".
Its nature can be changed as water turns to ice etc but its fundamental identity, that which it is composed of cannot be destroyed.
I also don't believe that our own created core identity can be destroyed so I can only conclude that we also are fundamental energy.
I think that everything exists as a "potential" energy. Whether or not it translates to actual is physical energy depends on human intervention.
Would you say that you see your energy and the energy outside of you as being separate? Does not energy flow through everything?
Indeed energy flows through everything and all energy affects other energy. The TCM view of energy seems sensible. That very definitely sees internal energy and external as separate.
Indeed energy flows through everything and all energy affects other energy. The TCM view of energy seems sensible. That very definitely sees internal energy and external as separate.
The distribution of energy has been described by some as similar to an ocean and a puddle. The core substance is the same.
If all originates from one then there is really no inside or outside, just our individual perception.
Not everything is energy. Everything has energy.
What is your definition of energy, if the brain is energy? If protein is energy?
Well that's not what E=mC^2 says.
C is the speed of light, which is a constant, so the equation tells us that energy equates to mass and mass equates to energy.
Energy manifests, and is contained within bounds that is mass or matter.
An atom, if split.... booom energy, the matter has broken from the self contained bounds and the energy is released.
Ok, that's a simplistic view, but it's the core essence that tells us that everything is energy, regardless of what it is.
That's why, in food, we have calories... the calorific value of the food, which is essentially what energy will be released when our bodies break down that matter through whatever chemical process takes place. Even then, not all the energy of the food substance is actually released as we haven't split down all the atoms of energy, only a quantity of the energy that was bonding atoms (and hence molecules) to each other. You could still take what comes out the other end and burn it to release more energy, but still there is more that is not released by that process.
So what is there in "everything" that you think is not energy?
Well that's not what E=mC^2 says.
C is the speed of light, which is a constant, so the equation tells us that energy equates to mass and mass equates to energy.
Energy manifests, and is contained within bounds that is mass or matter.
An atom, if split.... booom energy, the matter has broken from the self contained bounds and the energy is released.Ok, that's a simplistic view, but it's the core essence that tells us that everything is energy, regardless of what it is.
That's why, in food, we have calories... the calorific value of the food, which is essentially what energy will be released when our bodies break down that matter through whatever chemical process takes place. Even then, not all the energy of the food substance is actually released as we haven't split down all the atoms of energy, only a quantity of the energy that was bonding atoms (and hence molecules) to each other. You could still take what comes out the other end and burn it to release more energy, but still there is more that is not released by that process.So what is there in "everything" that you think is not energy?
True Energyles and thanks for including einey's equation.
Energy is not in everything, or some similar concept....
Everything is energy.
Everything is energy, even a thought, an emotion...from subtle to gross, non- matter to matter, the whole creational spectrum, is pure energy.
Energy vibrating at different frequencies
Sorry, I'm teaching. I do have things to add to this very interesting discussion, but I won't have time until the workshop participants go home at the end of the week.
See you then!
Okay, back again.
Well that's not what E=mC^2 says.
C is the speed of light, which is a constant, so the equation tells us that energy equates to mass and mass equates to energy.
Energy manifests, and is contained within bounds that is mass or matter.
An atom, if split.... booom energy, the matter has broken from the self contained bounds and the energy is released.
Ok, that's a simplistic view, but it's the core essence that tells us that everything is energy, regardless of what it is.
That's why, in food, we have calories... the calorific value of the food, which is essentially what energy will be released when our bodies break down that matter through whatever chemical process takes place. Even then, not all the energy of the food substance is actually released as we haven't split down all the atoms of energy, only a quantity of the energy that was bonding atoms (and hence molecules) to each other. You could still take what comes out the other end and burn it to release more energy, but still there is more that is not released by that process.
So what is there in "everything" that you think is not energy?
First: the word ‘energy’ has different meanings. In common usage it can mean almost anything you want it to mean. But this thread is about a ‘scientific approach’. The definition of ‘energy’, therefore, is “The ability to do work”.
Second: e=mc2. There’s been quite a discussion over the last three or four years about whether or not the speed of light is constant. Some observations seem to suggest that, in the far reaches of the universe, it might not be. In any case, the value ‘1’ which we ascribe to it is merely mathematical convention. Complicate it further – the full equation is m^2=E^2-p^2 where p is the object’s momentum.
Even if that were not so, that ‘=’ indicates a relationship, that both sides of the equation are equal, not that they are the same thing. Two 50p pieces are equal in value to a pound coin. That does not mean that two 50p pieces are a pound coin. e=mc2 is an equation, not a definition.
Thirdly: Whether, in the deeper reaches of Quantum physics (which gets accused of proving an awful lot that it’s not about) energy and mass are the same (I’ve read arguments both ways) they are not matter.
You cannot argue that energy and matter are the same thing (or that mass and matter are the same thing) because they are different orders of things. Energy and mass are properties of matter. Basically, matter is ‘stuff’. Energy is something ‘stuff’ has.
Energy manifests, and is contained within bounds that is mass or matter.
An atom, if split.... booom energy, the matter has broken from the self contained bounds and the energy is released.
Ok, that's a simplistic view, but it's the core essence that tells us that everything is energy, regardless of what it is.
That tells us, not that everything is energy, but that everything has energy.
Not too sure how to interpret this. Don't forget that Einstein's "energy" formulae was inclusive of mass as a physical substance. There are energies that are not physical as we know it and do not have mass. A "thought" is non mass, but it does work, it originates brain activity that subsequently moves mass. therefore a thought has to be classed as having energy.. This does obey the statement that energy cannot be destroyed but can change its state, or possibly change the state of others !..
Some say that an atom itself is energy, but I've yet to find exactly what is "energy" apart from the statement that it can't be destroyed or that it does work..
From what I've read, an atom can't be destroyed, even splitting the atom only creates a different form of energy.
An interesting question would be just how fast can a thought travel.
Not too sure how to interpret this. Don't forget that Einstein's "energy" formulae was inclusive of mass as a physical substance. There are energies that are not physical as we know it and do not have mass. A "thought" is non mass, but it does work, it originates brain activity that subsequently moves mass. therefore a thought has to be classed as having energy.. This does obey the statement that energy cannot be destroyed but can change its state, or possibly change the state of others !..
Some say that an atom itself is energy, but I've yet to find exactly what is "energy" apart from the statement that it can't be destroyed or that it does work..
From what I've read, an atom can't be destroyed, even splitting the atom only creates a different form of energy.
An interesting question would be just how fast can a thought travel.
I think you are confusing ‘mass’ (which is, like energy, a property) and ‘matter’. What exactly do you mean by “mass as a physical substance”?
The statement “Energy cannot be destroyed” (more correctly, energy is conserved within a closed system) is something we know about energy, but it is not the definition of energy. Energy does not do work. Energy is the ability to do work.
If an atom is split, it releases energy (nothing ‘different’) and becomes other atoms that together have slightly less mass than the original.
A thought travels at between 70 and 120 miles per second.
Were does the figure 70-120 miles per second come from ?
Neurons that link the spinal cord to the muscles.
The speed varies with distance (it takes longer to react to a pain in the toe than it does to a pain in the hand) and width of the neurons involved (it's easier, and therefore faster, for the thought to travel along a wide diameter neuron than a narrow one.
How much myelination a neuron has is also important. Some nerve cells have myelin cells that wrap around the neuron to provide a type of insulation sheath. The myelin sheath isn’t completely continuous along a neuron; there are small gaps in which the nerve cell is exposed. Nerve signals effectively jump from exposed section to exposed section instead of traveling the full extent of the neuronal surface. So signals move much faster in neurons that have myelin sheaths than in neurons that don’t.
Neurons that link the spinal cord to the muscles.
The speed varies with distance (it takes longer to react to a pain in the toe than it does to a pain in the hand) and width of the neurons involved (it's easier, and therefore faster, for the thought to travel along a wide diameter neuron than a narrow one.
How much myelination a neuron has is also important. Some nerve cells have myelin cells that wrap around the neuron to provide a type of insulation sheath. The myelin sheath isn’t completely continuous along a neuron; there are small gaps in which the nerve cell is exposed. Nerve signals effectively jump from exposed section to exposed section instead of traveling the full extent of the neuronal surface. So signals move much faster in neurons that have myelin sheaths than in neurons that don’t.
I guess it depends if you consider thoughts to just be neural impulses or something else. 😉
I guess it depends if you consider thoughts to just be neural impulses or something else. 😉
Well, you can't have thoughts without them.
Neurons that link the spinal cord to the muscles.
The speed varies with distance (it takes longer to react to a pain in the toe than it does to a pain in the hand) and width of the neurons involved (it's easier, and therefore faster, for the thought to travel along a wide diameter neuron than a narrow one.
How much myelination a neuron has is also important. Some nerve cells have myelin cells that wrap around the neuron to provide a type of insulation sheath. The myelin sheath isn’t completely continuous along a neuron; there are small gaps in which the nerve cell is exposed. Nerve signals effectively jump from exposed section to exposed section instead of traveling the full extent of the neuronal surface. So signals move much faster in neurons that have myelin sheaths than in neurons that don’t.
You may not have understood, I meant a thought, not a nerve impulse. Thoughts fall into the category of having no mass, whereas nerve impulses display mass. They can be measured.
Some say thoughts have infinite velocity. The only way I can accommodate this is that when we think of Mars or a distant planet or even Universe, in our mind we are instantly there.
This needs to happen for Einstein's equation to work. The right hand figure in the equation is the speed of light squared, so the left hand part of the equation has to be more than this.
I've read somewhere that the resonance of the Earth and our hearts is something like 6khz which I believe equates to 50,000Meters/s which should be 50,000 x 60 x 60 =180000000Meters/hr. So 186000miles/h x 186000miles/hour (speed of light squared) multiplied by this should give the speed of the energy or thought that created the idea for the Earth's or the heart's 6Khz resonance originally. I know that I have mixed Meters and Miles but I can't get out of this post to do the conversion. The thing is that the thought energy (non mass) has to be very fast for actual mass to be created.
This is like saying that thought energy workers have to generate actual thought energy to get a material effect. It's no good just wishing for something to happen, the actual intended (hi speed) thought has to be generated.
Can you instantly be on Mars (in your mind) when you think about it? Or are you rather seeing what you imagine Mars to be like - in which case you are still in your head, where your imagination is. Even if we think of being somewhere far away where we have actually been, our thoughts are in our memories, not elsewhere in actuality.
The right hand figure in the equation is the speed of light squared, so the left hand part of the equation has to be more than this.
First, as I said, the equation is a shortened version, missing out momentum and therefore only applicable to objects that have mass but no movement.
But your comment here makes no sense. Why does this mean that the 'left-hand part' (energy?) has to be more than - well, than what? Are you saying that mass cannot have a value of less than 1?
Can you instantly be on Mars (in your mind) when you think about it? Or are you rather seeing what you imagine Mars to be like - in which case you are still in your head, where your imagination is. Even if we think of being somewhere far away where we have actually been, our thoughts are in our memories, not elsewhere in actuality.
It's not a proven fact that our thoughts, imagination or memory reside in the head.
There have been people who have lost parts of their brain and, whilst temporarily without memory etc., regain those memories after time. If the memories were just within the brain matter, then losing part of the brain would mean they would never recover the memory, but that clearly hasn't been the case.
Sure, when we think certain things, or our emotions change, science can measure brain activity, but that does not prove that brain activity IS the thoughts or memories. Just as waves on the sea are caused by wind, doesn't mean the detection of waves means that the wind is in the water.
Whilst nerve impulses travel through the nervous system as electrical signals, that isn't a measure of our thoughts. A thought doesn't necessarily travel through the nervous system to our toe, for example; though we can say that the thought may trigger an impulse in the nervous system which itself travels to the toe.
Well, you can't have thoughts without them.
Can't you? What evidence is there?
Science is only measuring the nervous system impulses. It hasn't developed a means to measure thoughts (otherwise they'd be able to perfectly know what a person is thinking). So just because there could be a situation where there is no nerve impulses does not negate the possibility that there could still be thoughts.
Science is about discovery, not just about sticking rigidly to what is already discovered.
It's not a proven fact that our thoughts, imagination or memory reside in the head.
.
Fair enough. In the body, then. (Or possibly, the soul - which is another whole ball-game!) Anyway, not on Mars.
Yes, I agree with you that science is about discovery. But, until things are discovered they can't easily be used in scientific argument.
For example, I believe in both the soul and spirits - hard to practice shamanism without. But I wouldn't bring them into a discussion about science. Science needs evidence that is more than personal. After all, this is thread is called, "Science based Reiki belief."
First, as I said, the equation is a shortened version, missing out momentum and therefore only applicable to objects that have mass but no movement.
Can you explain mass with no movement'
Can you explain mass with no movement'
Possibly, if I understood what it was you didn't understand.
Neurons that link the spinal cord to the muscles.
The speed varies with distance (it takes longer to react to a pain in the toe than it does to a pain in the hand) and width of the neurons involved (it's easier, and therefore faster, for the thought to travel along a wide diameter neuron than a narrow one.
How much myelination a neuron has is also important. Some nerve cells have myelin cells that wrap around the neuron to provide a type of insulation sheath. The myelin sheath isn’t completely continuous along a neuron; there are small gaps in which the nerve cell is exposed. Nerve signals effectively jump from exposed section to exposed section instead of traveling the full extent of the neuronal surface. So signals move much faster in neurons that have myelin sheaths than in neurons that don’t.
That is the physical bodies speed response to thoughts, not the speed of thought.
Two people sharing the same thought at opposite sides of the world or anywhere will share the thought simultaneously as it is created, all thoughts are one within the oneness of consciousness. 😉