In Japanese, Rei translates to God-Consciousness, universal, spiritual wisdom.
Nope it doesn’t. It means ‘universal’ The whole word translates into universal energy/force. It does not translate to 'god consciousness" this is new-age fluff, which either you have added or somebody else has.
Nope as you would say. Please read this excerpt from an article by William Rand. My definition included[B] universal[/B] and did not say it was only God-Consciousness. You are misrepresenting my words.
The word Reiki is composed of two Japanese words - Rei and Ki. [B]When [/B][B]translating Japanese into English we must keep in mind that an exact translation is difficult.[/B] [B]The Japanese language has many levels of meaning[/B]. Therefore the context the word is being used in must be kept in mind when attempting to communicate its essence. Because these words are used in a spiritual healing context, a Japanese/English dictionary does not provide the depth of meaning we seek, as its definitions are based on common everyday Japanese. As an example, Rei is often defined as ghost and Ki as vapor and while these words vaguely point in the direction of meaning we seek, they fall far short of the understanding that is needed.
[B]
When seeking a definition from a more spiritual context, we find that Rei can be defined as the Higher Intelligence that guides the creation and functioning of the universe. Rei is a subtle wisdom that permeates everything, both animate and inanimate[/B]. This subtle wisdom guides the evolution of all creation ranging from the unfolding of galaxies to the development of life. On a human level, it is available to help us in times of need and to act as a source of guidance in our lives. Because of its infinite nature, it is all knowing. Rei is also called God and has many other names depending on the culture that has named it.
Are you purposefully not reading the study? You can say end of story all you like. You are not understanding the 2008 review.
The experiment was not designed to measure how the healing is taking place, it was designed to see if Reiki was any better than a placebo. The results show it was not. End of story
It was not an experiment. It was a review of previous studies. And yes, it is not complicated. Read it again. If you do not understand after reading it once again, there is no further discussing this with you.
Also if you want serious recovery from a disease, do not look to Reiki, it is proven to be no better than a placebo. A placebo cannot cure or treat a disease, it only gives an illusion that one is getting better.
If there is a serious illness, the Reiki practitioner will advise the patient to seek medical attention. Reiki can be an effective compliment to western medicine. And again, the 2008 [B]review[/B] did not disprove Reiki.
And here is the study you are referring to. Show me where it says they actually did A study, setting up a control group. If you read it, it states they [B]“searched data bases”.[/B]
Effects of reiki in clinical practice: [B]a systematic review of randomised clinical trials.[/B]
Lee MS, Pittler MH, Ernst E.
Source
Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter & Plymouth, Exeter, UK. myeong.lee@pms.ac.uk
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:
The aim of this systematic review is to summarise and critically evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of reiki.
METHODS:
[B]We searched the literature using 23 databases from their respective inceptions through to November 2007 (search again 23 January 2008) without language restrictions. Methodological quality was assessed using the Jadad score.[/B]
RESULTS:
The searches identified 205 potentially relevant studies. Nine randomised clinical trials (RCTs) met our inclusion criteria. Two RCTs suggested beneficial effects of reiki compared with sham control on depression, while one RCT did not report intergroup differences. For pain and anxiety, one RCT showed intergroup differences compared with sham control. For stress and hopelessness a further RCT reported effects of reiki and distant reiki compared with distant sham control. For functional recovery after ischaemic stroke there were no intergroup differences compared with sham. There was also no difference for anxiety between groups of pregnant women undergoing amniocentesis. For diabetic neuropathy there were no effects of reiki on pain. A further RCT failed to show the effects of reiki for anxiety and depression in women undergoing breast biopsy compared with conventional care.
DISCUSSION:
In total, the trial data for any one condition are scarce and independent replications are not available for each condition. Most trials suffered from methodological flaws such as small sample size, inadequate study design and poor reporting.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven.
In short?
?IN A COMMERCIAL YOGA CULTURE THAT HAS ABOLISHED ALL AUTHENTICITY, THE ONLY AUTHENTICITY LEFT IS TO ABOLISH THAT COMMERCIAL YOGA CULTURE?
Onward, folks.
That’s it, no more mr nice guy 
It is time to show new-agers science does not at all support Reiki, and has found Reiki no more effective than a placebo at best:
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES:
To determine whether provision of Reiki therapy during outpatient chemotherapy is associated with increased comfort and well-being.
DESIGN:
Double-blind, randomized clinical controlled trial.
SETTING:
Outpatient chemotherapy center.
SAMPLE:
189 participants were randomized to actual Reiki, sham Reiki placebo, or standard care.
METHODS:
Patients receiving chemotherapy were randomly placed into one of three groups. Patients received either standard care, a placebo, or an actual Reiki therapy treatment. A demographic tool and pre- and post-tests were given before and after chemotherapy infusion.
MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES:
Reiki therapy, sham Reiki placebo therapy, standard care, and self-reported levels of comfort and well-being pre- and postintervention.
FINDINGS:
Although Reiki therapy was statistically significant in raising the comfort and well-being of patients post-therapy, the sham Reiki placebo also was statistically significant. Patients in the standard care group did not experience changes in comfort and well-being during their infusion session.
CONCLUSIONS:
The findings indicate that the presence of an RN providing one-on-one support during chemotherapy was influential in raising comfort and well-being levels, with or without an attempted healing energy field.
IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING:
An attempt by clinic nurses to provide more designated one-to-one presence and support for patients while receiving their chemotherapy infusions could increase patient comfort and well-being.
merican nurses recently published an intriguing study with bizarre conclusions. They recruited almost 200 patients who were receiving chemotherapy for cancer. This is, of course, a difficult time for most cancer sufferers. There may be side-effects such as hair loss, nausea, fatigue, depression etc. All of these are bound to decrease patients’ wellbeing. So the nurses tested whether a session of reiki healing would improve the general wellbeing of their patients.
Reiki involves channelling “healing energy” into the body. Lots of people swear by it, but does it really work?
To find out, a proper control group is essential. The researchers therefore decided to compare reiki against “sham reiki” and against no such intervention. Sham reiki involved a non-reiki healer pretended to be a reiki healer. He was not trained in reiki and only followed the ritual of the treatment. So he did not send any “healing energy” to the patients whereas the reiki healer had been taught to do just that.
The results of this study were impressive: reiki did, in fact, make the patients fell better. Specifically, it increased the comfort and wellbeing of the patients in comparison with those who received no such intervention. Intriguingly, however, the sham reiki had exactly the same effects, and there were no differences between real and sham reiki.
What does this mean? The researchers were quite clear about their interpretation of the results. They believe reiki has been shown to work. Yet, I think the findings demonstrate exactly the opposite: genuine reiki is no better than sham reiki, thus it does not work.
Perhaps this is a rather academic matter of interpretation over which one could argue until the cows come home. However, the more pressing question is this: what should oncology teams throughout the world do about such findings?
Should they use reiki or similar therapies, as these American nurses seem to be suggesting? They clearly help desperately ill cancer patients, . Or should they avoid such treatments, because they are no better than placebo, as I and most scientists would suggest?
The scientific stance may appear heartless and cruel in light of the suffering of cancer patients, while the attitude of the nurses seems patient-centred and caring. This impression is wrong. By insisting that patients must not be treated with placebos like reiki, scientists also advocate that they receive treatments that demonstrably work better that placebo. For instance, massage has been shown to improve the wellbeing of cancer patients beyond a placebo effect. If a patient receives a massage with empathy, sympathy, time, understanding and dedication, she would benefit from the placebo effect – just like the reiki patient – but, in addition, she would also benefit from the specific effect of the treatment that massage does and Reiki does not offer.
Simply administering a placebo like reiki would deprive patients of the specific treatment effect. The allegedly caring approach of some enthusiasts of alternative medicine would therefore rob patients of benefits that they need and deserve. In other words, behind the smokescreen of alternative medicine – or integrated healthcare, to use the currently fashionable term – patients would not profit more, but less.
So who is heartless and cruel? Those who promote wacky placebos in the name of caring or those who stand up for science in the best interest of patients?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/oct/11/placebos-reiki-cancer-patients-harm
Fibromyalgia is a common, chronic condition that causes muscle pain and fatigue. People with fibromyalgia often turn to complementary and alternative therapies, such as Reiki, to help relieve their pain. Reiki is a form of energy medicine in which the practitioner seeks to transmit a “universal healing energy” to a person, either from a distance or through light touch. In general, evidence for energy medicine is scant, but anecdotal (subjective) literature suggests that Reiki can improve pain control and psychological well-being with few or no adverse effects.
NCCAM-funded researchers at the University of Washington, Seattle, conducted a clinical trial to determine whether Reiki might be beneficial as an adjunct therapy for fibromyalgia. In the trial, 100 people with fibromyalgia were recruited (81 completed the trial) and randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups. Each group received twice-weekly treatments for 8 weeks by either a Reiki master or an actor (sham Reiki) working either through direct touch or from 2 feet away. The researchers measured subjective pain as well as physical and mental functioning, medication use, and health provider visits throughout the trial. The participants and the researchers who gathered and analyzed data were blinded—i.e., Reiki versus sham group assignments were not disclosed.
The study showed that neither direct touch nor distant Reiki affected pain or any of the other outcome measures. The researchers concluded that adults with fibromyalgia are unlikely to benefit from Reiki. They noted that energy medicine therapies such as Reiki should be rigorously studied before being recommended to patients with chronic pain. They also suggested design considerations for such studies.
References
Assefi N, Bogart A, Goldberg J, et al. Reiki for the treatment of fibromyalgia: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2008; 14(9):1115–1122.
NTRODUCTION:
The aim of this systematic review is to summarise and critically evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of reiki.
METHODS:
We searched the literature using 23 databases from their respective inceptions through to November 2007 (search again 23 January 2008) without language restrictions. Methodological quality was assessed using the Jadad score.
RESULTS:
The searches identified 205 potentially relevant studies. Nine randomised clinical trials (RCTs) met our inclusion criteria. Two RCTs suggested beneficial effects of reiki compared with sham control on depression, while one RCT did not report intergroup differences. For pain and anxiety, one RCT showed intergroup differences compared with sham control. For stress and hopelessness a further RCT reported effects of reiki and distant reiki compared with distant sham control. For functional recovery after ischaemic stroke there were no intergroup differences compared with sham. There was also no difference for anxiety between groups of pregnant women undergoing amniocentesis. For diabetic neuropathy there were no effects of reiki on pain. A further RCT failed to show the effects of reiki for anxiety and depression in women undergoing breast biopsy compared with conventional care.
DISCUSSION:
In total, the trial data for any one condition are scarce and independent replications are not available for each condition. Most trials suffered from methodological flaws such as small sample size, inadequate study design and poor reporting.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven.
LG practices Reiki, no doubt charges for her services so obviously has vested interests in defending this sham art. But the evidence is showing us clearly Reiki is a sham. It should not be encouraged for the treatment of any disease and nor should it be encouraged in hospitals or by doctors or any funding to this sham art be commissioned. I mean send the funding where it is needed, like cancer research, or even Yoga research for that matter(tons of studies supporting Yoga)
And for those getting Reiki treatments or wanting attunements - save your money. Do some Yoga, listen to some soothing music, practice deep relaxation at home or get a massage. You will get exactly the same relaxing effects, and a lot more real benefits, without all the fluff and for a fraction of the price.
Once again, you completely skirted my post and all the misinformation you have been handing out.
Might I ask then why some of the major hospitals and Doctors are incorporating Reiki?
And yes, I do charge for my Reiki sessions. I also freely give it without charging.
I’m finished here.
Nope as you would say. Please read this excerpt from an article by William Rand. My definition included universal and did not say it was only God-Consciousness. You are misrepresenting my words.
Who is William Rand, and why should I care about what he thinks? The philosophy of Reiki has got nothing to do with ‘god-consciousness’. You’re just adding more fluff to something that is already fluffy enough 
[QUOTE=lotusgirl;73986]Once again, you completely skirted my post and all the misinformation you have been handing out.
Might I ask then why some of the major hospitals and Doctors are incorporating Reiki?
And yes, I do charge for my Reiki sessions. I also freely give it without charging.
I’m finished here.[/QUOTE]
Nope, once again you have refused to acknowledge the evidence, which I have now cited several times, that Reiki has been proven in scientific controlled studies to be no more effective than a placebo.
I know why you will not acknowledge the evidence, because you make a living of offering Reiki sessions to people How much is it per session, $100? Nice way to make money by profiteering on peoples beliefs!
It’s unfortunate how the general Yoga and spiritual community get grouped together with new-agers. This is why responsible and rational members of the Yoga and spiritual community need to self-regulate themselves by speaking up against the new age quacks and people turning Yoga and spirituality into a business.
I would like to cite this article published in the Guardian UK again, because it echoes the same voice of reason I am providing here:
The scientific stance may appear heartless and cruel in light of the suffering of cancer patients, while the attitude of the nurses seems patient-centred and caring. This impression is wrong. By insisting that patients must not be treated with placebos like reiki, scientists also advocate that they receive treatments that demonstrably work better that placebo. For instance, massage has been shown to improve the wellbeing of cancer patients beyond a placebo effect. If a patient receives a massage with empathy, sympathy, time, understanding and dedication, she would benefit from the placebo effect – just like the reiki patient – but, in addition, she would also benefit from the specific effect of the treatment that massage does and Reiki does not offer.
Simply administering a placebo like reiki would deprive patients of the specific treatment effect. The allegedly caring approach of some enthusiasts of alternative medicine would therefore rob patients of benefits that they need and deserve. In other words, behind the smokescreen of alternative medicine – or integrated healthcare, to use the currently fashionable term – patients would not profit more, but less.
So who is heartless and cruel? Those who promote wacky placebos in the name of caring or those who stand up for science in the best interest of patients?
The Yoga community and spiritual community at large need to stop endorsing this quackery and commercialization of Yoga/spirituality. We endorse it in two ways: by actively participating in these sham brands like quantum Yoga, Reiki, Secret, Law of Attraction and by by remaining silent on them and letting them get away with it.
What do we have to lose?
Purity and potency: Yoga and spirituality today has been diluted down so much that like in homoepathic medicine, the actual active ingredient is negligible. We are getting dumbed down and substandard products on spirituality.
Respect and credibility: Outside the Yoga and spiritual community, we are seen as quacks, irrational and fluffy people. That the scientific and academic community seldom want to be associated with us. This is because we are not making an effort to self-regulate ourselves by dissociating ourselves from the quacks and greedy merchants that riddle our community.
Thus as responsible members of the Yoga and spiritual community we need to promote more honest,scientific and rational thinking in our community and regulate against the quackery and commercialization. Say NO to Quantum Yoga - and Reiki
I finally took a look at the Quantum Yoga site, and I like it. What I find most interesting is that the woman behind it grew up in India and started practicing at an early age. She studied with both BKS Iyengar and Pattabi Jois in India, and is actively involved in practicing and teaching yoga. I don’t completely buy the connection she makes between yoga and quantum physics, but I find her yoga to be far more authentic than somebody whose only involvement with yoga is posting on the internet.
[QUOTE=Asuri;74007]I finally took a look at the Quantum Yoga site, and I like it. What I find most interesting is that the woman behind it grew up in India and started practicing at an early age. She studied with both BKS Iyengar and Pattabi Jois in India, and is actively involved in practicing and teaching yoga. I don’t completely buy the connection she makes between yoga and quantum physics, but I find her yoga to be far more authentic than somebody whose only involvement with yoga is posting on the internet.[/QUOTE]
You’re funny
[QUOTE=Asuri;74007]I finally took a look at the Quantum Yoga site, and I like it. What I find most interesting is that the woman behind it grew up in India and started practicing at an early age. She studied with both BKS Iyengar and Pattabi Jois in India, and is actively involved in practicing and teaching yoga. I don’t completely buy the connection she makes between yoga and quantum physics, but I find her yoga to be far more authentic than somebody whose only involvement with yoga is posting on the internet.[/QUOTE]
This is your second unprovoked personal attack against me in this thread. I have reported it to David 
My sincere apologies for closing the thread with harsh words. I’ve deleted the posts that provoked my poor handling of the situation so the thread can continue.
Please continue the conversation without any personal attacks.
Again, my apologies for handling the situation poorly. I let my frustration get the better of me.
This is probably why I’m so against banning people for outbursts and “poor behavior”. I’d have to ban myself too
[QUOTE=Asuri;74007]I finally took a look at the Quantum Yoga site, and I like it. What I find most interesting is that the woman behind it grew up in India and started practicing at an early age. She studied with both BKS Iyengar and Pattabi Jois in India, and is actively involved in practicing and teaching yoga. I don’t completely buy the connection she makes between yoga and quantum physics, but I find her yoga to be far more authentic than somebody whose only involvement with yoga is posting on the internet.[/QUOTE]
I am going to respond to your post without any personal attacks, as I think at least one of us has to conduct themselves maturely. First let me respond to your personal attack: You state my only involvement with Yoga is posting on the internet, and I presume you mean posting on this forum. Recently, I have been posting much less on this forum because of work and other activities. The fact that I am a prolific poster on this forum does not reflect on me poorly at all. I contribute to this forum because I have interest in and enjoy the discussions here. I am sure this is reason many people post here. You yourself are also a prolific poster here.
Secondly, although I do not have to justify my involvement in Yoga, as you have personally attacked me by insinuating I have no involvement in Yoga other than posting on the internet, I feel I must put the record straight. Here is what my involvement in Yoga is:
Evidently, my involvement with Yoga is not just participating on a forum, but I am actually very passionate about Yoga and Yoga is a very important part of my life. So you insult me deeply by undermining my involvement with Yoga. If you have any decency and maturity you will public-ally apologize to me for this comment and never make such comments again.
Now, let me explain why personal attacks, more technically known as ad-hominems(to-the-man) are a waste of time and space, and end up ruining discussions
It is perfectly possible to have discussions on any subject without adhominems. Adhominems are known as informal fallacies because they do not add anything to an argument or discussion. They are used by those who cannot actually contribute any valid arguments. Three of your contributions in this thread(two of which has now been deleted) were personal attacks. They detracted from the subject and poisoned the atmosphere.
This portion of your most recent post is fine:
I finally took a look at the Quantum Yoga site, and I like it. What I find most interesting is that the woman behind it grew up in India and started practicing at an early age. She studied with both BKS Iyengar and Pattabi Jois in India, and is actively involved in practicing and teaching yoga.
It is actually making a point, and offers some reason as well that the founder of Quantum Yoga has studied with Yoga masters like Iyengar and Patabi Jois in India from an early age. This will contribute to the flow of discussion. I can respond to it. Here is my response:
If she is studied with Iyengar and Patabhi Jois, then she should continue in their lineage - be an Ashtanga or Iyengar Yoga teacher, like others who have studied under them. Why does she feel the need to start her own Yoga lineage? Is she offering anything new that justifies a new brand of Yoga? No, she is effectively deriving everything she has learned from Iyengar and Patabhi Jois, repackaged it using gimmicks like quantum physics and Ayurveda, and now sells it as her own brand to gain money and fame.
The commercialization of Yoga is definitely one of the things I am criticizing in this thread. There are far too many merchants in the Yoga community who take a legitimate practice like Yoga learned from somebody else, and then do business with it. The result is the practice loses its potency and suffers.
The solution is the Yoga community needs to self-regulate. We must not endorse the commercialization and quackery of Yoga and spirituality, but actively speak up against it.
The hypocrisy of this lecture on the evils of personal attacks is appalling, considering the source. People who have been around this forum for a while will know what I mean. I consider a practice that consists of actually practicing and teaching yoga, without pretention, and learned from acknowledged masters to be far more legitimate than a “neck-up” practice that consists mostly of reading books and tapping at a keyboard. The woman goes by her real name, has an M.A. in religious studies from an institution that she has named, she is an advanced practitioner, a published author, and an international yoga teacher. Her accomplishments in the field of yoga far outweigh your own, and the connection she makes between yoga and quantum physics is something you yourself have done many times, so I think it’s really a joke for you to be critical of her.
f you have any decency and maturity you will public-ally apologize to me for this comment and never make such comments again.
You have proven that you have no decency and maturity. I have reported your posts again to David for continuing personal attacks. I am not going to just sit here and let you personally attack me and ruin a good discussion. I think you take advantage of David’s good nature and tolerance, that despite him requesting that you do not make personal attacks and deleting your previous ones, you still continue with impunity.
This discussion is not about Surya Deva vs the founder of Quantum Yoga. It is about commercialization and false misleading promises in the Yoga and spiritual community and need for self-regulation. An issue that many people in the Yoga community share. Stop making this discussion personal. In fact don’t participate if you cannot be civil and mature. I don’t mean this just for this discussion, but any discussion. I am tired of your constant and unprovoked personal attacks. You have ruined many discussions.
It’s really unfortunate that another thread has to degenerate into childish bickering. I really do not wish to participate in that sort of thing. I have to point out, though, that your own post contains a blatant personal attack. This demand for an apology is really laughable, considering the numerous occasions that you have attacked me on this forum. If merely expressing an opinion as to what constitutes a legitimate form of yoga is going to be misconstrued as a personal attack, then it’s time for me to leave this forum anyway.
It’s really unfortunate that another thread has to degenerate into childish bickering. I really do not wish to participate in that sort of thing.
You are the only one engaging in childish bickering here. You are the only one making personal attacks. I have still not returned any of your personal attacks, and requesting an apology for a personal attack, is not a personal attack. This goes without saying.
Asuri just leave this discussion if you have nothing valid to contribute.
Unfortunately the definition of what is valid seems to be “agrees with Surya Deva” and the definition of invalid seems to be “does not agree with Surya Deva”. I’ve already learned that it’s impossible to get rid of “quackery” in yoga, mainly because no one person can set themselves up as the arbiter of what is or is not “quackery”. If they attempt to do so, they become a would-be yoga dictator, which itself is a form of “quackery”.
I suspect that this campaign against commercialization in yoga is really a veiled attempt by hindus to “take back” yoga. Personally, I think its a good thing that yoga has escaped hinduism.
HAtha is taught as a ladder leading to the pinnacle of Raja.
THe END, even though hatha has, at least to some, highly desirable side effects.
Don’t care bout the Big things? Haven’t had enough suffering? You’ve built 34 mansions of bones and thats not enough yet?
.
Want to feel the ENERGY? Want to know, through experience, that you are more than a slab of meat? Want to know that there is energy, you are energy, and that it lasts far longer than dust?
Can you be still for ten minutes or less and simply put your mind on a spot in your body?
The energy follows mind. Gather the mind to a spot and energy will follow. THis sensation, if you have some measure of clarity, and aren’t composed of sludge, and fire, you will feel. Give it time… And it’s not just your mind that you feel but the energy gathering. Conregating. Gesticulatin…
It’s even easier to feel if you do asana first for a bit - then gather the mind.
Double benefit to you, you will feel, and your faith will be shorn, but you will also give a measure of love to your body thats worn…
AMEN.