![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, the Reiki Workshop is going to be tomorrow. Presently, I'm planning to focus on teaching them about "Traditional Usui Reiki", more appropriately Takata Reiki and what I know of Usui Reiki Ryoho, with the clear disclaimer that I was trained in forms of Reiki which branch off from Takata's school and that what I know of Usui Reiki Ryoho comes from research I have done on my own, and while I can personally verify the effectiveness of those techniques I will be sharing (or I would not share them) I cannot vouch with certainty for their historical accuracy and ultimate origins.
Karuna and Imara I may touch on as concepts, but I am not planning to delve into them in depth. Adding them in along with the introductory material would likely be overwhelming and confusing to digest all at once.
I'll probably end up giving a small number of attunements to people, a few more healings, and maybe a couple of energy-tastes as well for those who are just curious. I don't know what level attunements these will be yet... largely planning to play by ear on that one. I don't really like the takata division of levels... symbol-less and hands-only to symboled and distance to teacher... I like giving people as many tools to play with as possible. But at the same time, I'm also not really comfortable with just attuning everyone to Master level and letting them run off to play with it. Some of them could handle it. (One or two of them I'm pretty sure could handle a direct attunement to Imara, though I will not be doing that.) Others could not.
Hmm.... of course, there is also the fact that I don't believe the division between the levels is quite what Takata made it out to be... I believe first-levels can heal from a distance, and work with symbols if they choose to (though symbols are of course by no means necessary). Perhaps empowering them to that point is not something I need to think of as limiting, despite the dogma of the system.
I know that in the eastern material I have, one of the main differences in "first" (actually four different levels, it is only taught in the West as one) and "second" level (one level, two halves) is that the practitioner had to develop the ability to intuitively sense the location of illness/source of illness before he or she would be offered the training for the next level. It strikes me as having more in common with grades in a martial art than descriptions of what the student has the potential to do based on the empowerments given.
Karuna and Imara I may touch on as concepts, but I am not planning to delve into them in depth. Adding them in along with the introductory material would likely be overwhelming and confusing to digest all at once.
I'll probably end up giving a small number of attunements to people, a few more healings, and maybe a couple of energy-tastes as well for those who are just curious. I don't know what level attunements these will be yet... largely planning to play by ear on that one. I don't really like the takata division of levels... symbol-less and hands-only to symboled and distance to teacher... I like giving people as many tools to play with as possible. But at the same time, I'm also not really comfortable with just attuning everyone to Master level and letting them run off to play with it. Some of them could handle it. (One or two of them I'm pretty sure could handle a direct attunement to Imara, though I will not be doing that.) Others could not.
Hmm.... of course, there is also the fact that I don't believe the division between the levels is quite what Takata made it out to be... I believe first-levels can heal from a distance, and work with symbols if they choose to (though symbols are of course by no means necessary). Perhaps empowering them to that point is not something I need to think of as limiting, despite the dogma of the system.
I know that in the eastern material I have, one of the main differences in "first" (actually four different levels, it is only taught in the West as one) and "second" level (one level, two halves) is that the practitioner had to develop the ability to intuitively sense the location of illness/source of illness before he or she would be offered the training for the next level. It strikes me as having more in common with grades in a martial art than descriptions of what the student has the potential to do based on the empowerments given.
