Talk:Reiki

——————————————— REIKI ARTICLE TALK PAGE ———————————————	Please, add new entries to the bottom and don't forget to sign your name by typing four tildes: ~~~~.
Please, no spam.
/archive1 March, 2003 - July, 2005

Legitamacy of the Applied Placebo Effect

I think that reiki is not given its due as a practical method of holistic healing. While many would dispute its validity over the simple fact that the energy purported by practitioners is not (yet) measurable through the scientific method, one must also consider the subjective results. Some more intelligent (arguably) and broad minded practitioners would say that the energy of reiki IS the energy of the placebo effect - applied faith, as it were. It is litterally the positive thought of the universal conciousness, and when aligned with a practitioner and a subject, both inviting that positive change - that energy - through faith, hope, and ritual, the results are valid even if the method is not clearly understood. The japanese concept - the eastern concept in general - of energy, is a lot more inclusive of concept and ideal than the scientific definition. Ultimately, though, everything is energy, and even our current physics take us further towards this idea as we try to determine if there is a difference between energy and matter.

But, as you say, it is subjective, not objective. The article has to reflect that. We aren't here to convince anyone that reiki is real or not, just to provide info for people to make up their own minds. There are a lot of notable objections to Western medicine and the scientific method in general, too, and we have to report those as well. Fire Star 20:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the downside of this discussion- especially from the Wikipedia editors point of view- concerning Reiki is that they (editors) consider some things as legitmate such as martial arts techniques because of the lineage. If things are ancient then that legitimizes the method. I would suggest that the Western orthodox medical community would place most of the Asian martial arts practices in the same category as Reiki- unless you are equating martial arts with exercising the body as a daily work out. If chi is involved it is pseudoscience. No getting around it. The issue with Reiki is that there are really no body movements involved, thus no exercise. It is all about subtle energy which to date is not validated by the scientific community.

If we stay current, something that most detractors of Reiki and other hands on energy techniques do not bother with, we will find that there are, as I write, experiments in progress such as Gravity Probe B that is trying to prove that there is such a thing as gravitomagnetism (perhaps another name for chi) See:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/19apr_gravitomagnetism.htm

The point is that the Reiki experience should be allowed to be written without the quackery and detractor commentary. The emphasis should be on the original Reiki stream from Japan to Hawaii and perhaps the Japanese Reiki that never left their shores. All the other Reiki derrivatives could be discussed in a related section.

"The point is that the Reiki experience should be allowed to be written without the quackery and detractor commentary." Why? Wikipedia isn't a free advertising service. When someone asks me how a martial art works, I can show them a demonstrable, reproducible mechanism. I can also show them how the leverage is coordinated with the breath (ch'i), and that that leverage works better with the coordination than without it. Not lineage, efficacy. When I ask a reiki practitioner how reiki works, they don't demonstrate a mechanism, it is all faith as you say, subjectivity incarnate. Does that make reiki bad? No. But it does make it subjective. That is inescapable. Fire Star 05:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

There's more than enough criticism of reiki in this article. I agree that the poor reader should at least be given the chance to go beyond the opening paragraph before being blasted by quackery claims. The 5th paragraph does this ably, and there're also the dedicated sections further in the article, as well as wording such as 'reiki practitioners claim' or 'is said by its practioners' that implies criticism. I suggest the sentence 'Nevertheless, because of the lack of objective evidence for its theories or its results, the scientific establishment considers Reiki to be quackery.' be removed from the opening paragraph. Fire Star, are you happy with this? Greenman 14:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the language of practitioners claim or is said by its practitioners is necessary for npov, and doesn't imply criticism. It is the same language used on most of the alternative medicine articles, and even with subjects that would seem less controversial. Reiki is a typical example of such a practise, and as such its controversial nature is one of its most notable features. You will find similar wording at articles like Falun Gong, Scientology and Homeopathy. We aren't denigrating reiki, we are reporting it. If its theories and practise seem dodgy to many people, that shouldn't be swept under the rug in a POV puff piece. We do also imply that many people find it valuable and study it. The article should present both sides, and report controversies. The Taijiquan and Qigong articles do the same. I agree that perhaps "quackery" is a bit strong, perhaps "controversial" is a little better... Fire Star 16:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there a specific purpose for emphasizing Celtic Reiki in the category of Non Traditional Reiki? Is this an example (editors) of how Reiki became corrupted from the original teachings be it from the Japanese Reiki or from the Hawayo Takata - Chujiro Hayashi lineage? If the editors have some knowledge of Asian energy arts, they should know that the Master passes down the empowerment. In this case, the Reiki streams would be intact. To write that channeled New Age teachings are synonymous with the original Reiki streams is both ludicrous and an oxymoron. Non Traditional Reiki originally referred to those independent Reiki teachers that did not follow the guidelines of the more formal Reiki organizations that were established after Mrs. Hawayo Takata such as Radiance Technique- generally in regard to the amount of money charged or training levels involved. Japanese Reiki (outside of Japan) came later. When we bypass the original Reiki teachings and group New Age channeling and teaching with it then Reiki becomes a pot puree of confusion and angst. Perhaps "New Age Channeled Reiki" would be a better heading than Non Traditional Reiki. There is a significant difference in both transmission and in the teachings.

• • • It is obvious now that the editors and others of similar motivation choose to voice their jaundiced views concerning the Reiki experience looking for the extremes and not the middle balanced view when discussing Reiki:

"Reiki is a Japanese style of faith healing, which was popularized during the Meiji period (the late 19th century) by Mikao Usui (usui mikao 臼井甕男) in Japan. It has gained a small following worldwide. Nevertheless, because of the lack of objective evidence for its theories or its results, and the mystical language and metaphor employed by its adherents, the scientific establishment considers Reiki to be nothing more than a placebo."

What part of Reiki is faith? Most practitoners would consider Reiki to be a subtle energy art that is not based on faith but direct experience. If one looks at the "Medicine Buddha" section of Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_Buddha

there is no mention of quakery, placebo or small following world wide. There is also no proof based on stated Western scientific method that the Medicine Buddha practice works or is legitimate. Both Reiki and Medicine Buddha work with subtle healing energy. The Medicine Buddha is a Tibetan Buddhist practice. Reiki is not a dharma teaching. This does not in any way infer that Reiki is not a profound subtle energy art that helps one become more aware, more awake.

At Wikipedia, writers slander some practices and condone others. There is no continuity nor balanced measured handling of these topics. The truth in Reiki is in its simplicity as it was originally transimitted to the West- not in the extremes of its attenuation via the New Age teachings that claim a legitimate Reiki connection. ***

Be bold?

I moved a sentence from the first paragraph down to the "Controversies" section, and now the first sentence is in bold and italics. The codes in the edit box looked OK, but the preview did not. I have no idea why the text came out formatted like that, nor do I have any idea how to fix it. Just goes to show you that a little knowledge can be dangerous, no matter how bold you are. How do I fix this? JKM4620 04:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Fixed (I'm not sure why it wasn't working the other way - the code looked fine to me). -GrantNeufeld 04:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

++ Be Real? ++

Where does faith healing come into play with Reiki? Faith healing implies that someone or something else is doing the healing- that somehow one is bringing in healing energy from somewhere else. This implies that Reiki is channeled so to speak. The truth in the Reiki experience is about self empowerment and self healing. It is about healing from the inside out. The inside (beyond references) is about ones natural inner perfection and accessing that. Reiki is personal in this regard. There is no where else to go. Reiki is self empowerment when approached in this manner. To understand the Reiki experience in this way one has to approach Reiki from a Buddhist perspective- though one does not have to be a Buddhist practitioner. There is no way around it.

Reiki self empowerment is recognizing ones Buddha nature or in other words, recognizing ones inner perfection that is inherent in us all. It cannot be improved upon or changed- but just is. Self healing is not just about physical healing though physical healing is important to us all. Reiki healing is about wellness and accessing well being- to be happy. Happy in this way is a sense of comfort and having courage to walk ones path regardless of what is happening. It is about a knowingness. This is a far cry from faith ***especially faith healing*** and dependence upon something else. Reiki is very natural because we are natural when we are awake to our inner beauty. Being awake requires consistency and practice each day. To be awake to the Reik experience one must be in its flow (ones inner flow with awareness) moment to moment. We are all going to get sick and die eventually. All things change except for our inner beauty that is a profound wellness beyond the physical changes.

If Reiki has a meaning beyond this natural simplicity then what is being taught as Reiki truly is something else and falls into the category of make believe.

Removing links

There have been some recent edits by an anon user that have been seemingly in aid of taking out critical internal and external links. We have to present a balanced approach, Wikipedia isn't an advertising service. See what Wikipedia is not. Fire Star 01:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Takata paragraph moved...

Aha. And I've discovered the discussion page. After reading the most interesting commentary here, I am compelled to note that I have moved a paragraph describing Takata's claims to occur after Takata has been introduced in the text. The article's flow doesn't suffer too badly from the move, but it seems Takata needs to be introduced before her claims can be discussed.

Postscript. Being a student and level 3 practitioner myself, I have seen first hand the effects of Reiki upon others. Upon my initial read of this article I must admit I was rather discouraged to have almost every sentence begin with a disclaimer. Although it is very succinct and informative, I finished reading the article with a negative feeling. It may be a question of semantics, but perhaps "allegedly" and its forms could soften the tone a bit. Zirconiums 08/22/2005 16:08 (no tilde on this keyboard)

Greetings. The move makes good sense. Fire Star 00:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

anonymous

Apparently, I am the anonymous user who “removed critical links.”

The link I removed was to some stupid skeptic site. And I tried to replace it with a link which has information about omni ki style reiki. I think I posted the wrong link.

Anywho, I did add some information which helped to balance this ridiculously slanted entry.

Slanted? Or balanced?

All I see in this article is information which makes reiki sound like hogwash!

You got two perspectives, the new-agie way out there perspective, and the skeptical perspective. Nothing here links reiki to its Traditional Japanese Medical roots, Taoism, or any form of oriental medicine. All that is here is information making reiki practitioners sound like a bunch of whack-jobs. And the information I posted, with the help of a friend, had a good insight into the style of reiki we where trained in.

It was not promotional, but informational. We didn’t delete anything from any other user, except the link to the BS skeptic site, which gives about as balanced of a perspective as fox news.

The information we posted was deleted, by a moderator. Some balance!

So, there you go. Think what you will, but this entry about reiki gives no information about the system of reiki which we know. And since I am also a reiki master teacher of several lineages, I think I do know a bit about the subject.

- Vegan Stephen

The fourth paragraph boldy begins with the statement:

" Many scientists, health care workers and others dispute the effectiveness of Reiki, claiming that there are no objective studies confirming the existence of this specific Reiki energy or practitioners' claims that this Reiki energy has the capacity to facilitate healing beyond that expected from the placebo effect"

The question that arises in my mind and perhaps with others reading this section is who are these scientists? Where is the source for this statement and why does it come at the beginning of the paragraph and not at the end. Interestingly enough, the latter part of this paragraph does have a source:

" At the same time, some healthcare workers (medical doctors, nurses, mental health professionals, hospice and nursing home workers, and other healthcare providers) believe that Reiki has some beneficial effect on the recipient and is a worthwhile inclusion in both professional training and patient care (to wit, registered nurses may earn continuing education units, or CEUs, through the American Holistic Nurses Association, accredited by the American Nurses Credentialing Center, for Reiki training.)"

The latter part of the paragraph also blends in with the overall context of the Reiki experience. The "placebo effect" statement would best be discussed in the controversy section.

The Non traditional Reiki section is a nightmare and an embarrassment. Anyone trying to make heads or tails of what the writer is trying to convey will be stumped here. At issue is ignorantly placing Reiki teaching from independent Reiki masters in the same light as New Age spiritualism and other fringe thinking. It really is quite a mess to read and sort out if one does not know the truth about the history of Reiki.

This article was filled with lines like, "said to" and passive voice writing. I've attempted to clean most of it up but it could still use a little more work. I removed a few of the over used "claim" statements and replaced them with teach... which is less judgmental and equally true. Reiki schools, masters and teachers don't just claim many of these things, they teach these things. Some of the criticism of Reiki seems redundant. I'm not sure that the entire segment on Reiki as a cult serves much of a purpose. Some people say the Catholic Church is a cult yet it is not included in the encylopedia. While I'm sure that some pracitioners out there some place are basing their fees on huge percentages of the income of the ill client I hardly think this is the norm. so I adjusted the text and if you have sources for these stories of peole being charged tens of thousands of dollars for teatments, please include them in future posts. There is a lot to be said for the "placebo effect" and maybe that is all Reiki is able to generate and for many people the placebo effect can make a huge difference. When I get a chance I'll add more on this along with somme excellent research and source information on the bennefits of creating the "placebo effect".

I think you are entering a profound area when delving into the "placebo effect". A synonymous word for this term may be inter-being and accessing ones innate self healing while also benefiting from the compassionate intentions of others in the form of vital energy flow. Western medical science is still focused on isolating processes thinking that there are no energy interconnections.

Please sign your comments, people. Four tildes in a row will do it. It is alright to say that a skeptical website is "stupid" and that the placebo effect should be called something else on the talk page, but you'll all have to remember that not everyone is as impressed with reiki as its practitioners are. Please read the archived talk above, as we've gone over this ground several times before with this article. To be brief, we don't want this article to be an advertisement, instruction manual or a defamation page. We should present the notable arguments pro and con and let the readers decide. Fire Star 20:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Creating a clear and balanced view of Reiki

Fire Star, the the discussions on the Reiki article should give a fair and balanced view of Reiki. Recently, with constructive criticism, the text is more balanced than it was two months ago. Since you are the gate keeper on this article,it would be helpful and informative for visitors and those interested in adding their views to know what is acceptable when changes are to be made. My thought is most readers of this discussion page would come away feeling that you- Fire Star- are not approaching this article with the necessary degree of neutrality. It would be helpful if more than one Wikipedia editor shares their views on this topic. What does it matter if not everyone likes Reiki? There should be a section for the controversy and a section for the Reiki experience as it unfolded. There is also a big question mark, so to speak, about sources. It should apply across the board and be current.

Attempting to stiffle the discussion page really serves no constructive purpose. My view is that we all want to present Reiki in a way that is both professional, informative, and well written with documented sources.

Tom05

Greetings Tom. FWIW, I'm not the gatekeeper, I'm just another editor who happens to have this article on their watchlist. What sets me apart from the average editor of an article like this is that I have some idea of how Wikipedia works, and also of the cultural contexts Usui drew upon to create reiki as well as the cultural contexts modern New Age practitioners use to promote it. As I've said in the archived discussion, where reiki needs to be qualified is in its mechanism, which is really only demonstrable by the reiki people saying that it exists. There are many other practises where this is also the case, of course. I'm sorry that you see that as hostile to reiki, but our npov policy kind of demands that all sides of the story be put in. I've also included, even insisted, that critical paragraphs be included on articles about disciplines that I myself practise, FWIW. If any discipline can't acknowledge and answer critical questions, what indeed is it doing? Fire Star 02:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

inadequate definition altogether

There needs to be a set standard for how these articles are written. The hard feelings which are expressed here are an obvious result of preconceived notions about certain forms of natural medicine and its proponents. One does not have to look far to see the obvious bias within the wikipedia medical pages. When one reads the article about antibiotics they can observe this bias towards western medicine as the only form based on true scientific principles. This is actually far from the truth. Western medical practice observes the body in a very material way. If part A is malfunctioning, take it out. If there is pain in part B than take a pill to kill the pain. There is very little health or healing involved in the practice of allopathic medicine and surgery. However, it is treated within these pages as if it was nearly absent of any controversy at all. Let it be known, that these treatments are controversial and dangerous.

Example: Antibiotics have been under fire since the beginning. Even the name Anti (against) bio (life) ought to send shivers down the spine of anyone interested in taking this drug. By not mentioning the placebo response involved in boosting the effectiveness of these and other drugs, yet mentioning it under other treatment entrees, you are asserting that placebo response is absent. A slight mention of the misuse of antibiotics is inefficient to bring this point home. Surgery which is controversial even within the allopathic medical establishment, gets listed without mentioning this controversy all together.

My point is simply this, if credit is to be given to any form of treatment, one must list it objectively by defining it as it is defined within its prospective community. The reiki article does not come close to this in anyway, shape or form. This article is inadequate, and should not be considered a balanced view of the practice.

If a balanced perspective is what you truly desire, than list a balance of views within the energetic medical community. There are many forms of this healing to fill countless pages with different views of its practice. Instead, you have chosen to list only the perspectives of the new age and those who appose these prospective. You haven’t even intelligently defined reiki within these pages. If you cannot present a proper definition of reiki, than you cannot begin argue the controversy surrounding it.

Stephen Mace, RMT, MTI, Reiki Master Teacher