This led me to believe that the most logical and rational view is that there is a consciousness existing outside of humans or life. That the universe must have started with a form of consciouness that we, as creations of the universe, reflect. In considering this, my current working hypothesis is that the universe itself as a whole is a consciousness and, rather than being a separate consciousness from us, we are fragments of that consciousness and, in fact, that consciousness is the sum of the consciousness of all the separate fragments.
Sri Isopanisad:
Invocation
oḿ pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idaḿ
pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate
pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya
pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate
SYNONYMS
oḿ — the Complete Whole; pūrṇam — perfectly complete; adaḥ — that; pūrṇam — perfectly complete; idam — this phenomenal world; pūrṇāt — from the all-perfect; pūrṇam — complete unit; udacyate — is produced; pūrṇasya — of the Complete Whole; pūrṇam — completely, all; ādāya — having been taken away; pūrṇam — the complete balance; eva — even; avaśiṣyate — is remaining.
TRANSLATION
The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.
Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps it DOES blind me to it. Perhaps someday I will let go of logic and reason and then see what you are talking about and recognize its indisputable truth on some gut level. And then come back on here and post, "Oh, I was wrong, logic and reason do necessarily side-track you from enlightenment." But I just don't see how you can be so sure of that just because you have come to a (presumably) enlightened state of mind without following a path of logic and reason.
I believe you're quite right. There must be logical & reasonable ways to describe real things. To say otherwise is madness, imho.
Faith also has logic and reason to it.
Blind faith doesn't.
One has to be informed... failing that, extremely lucky.
I've experience with Reiki. It's good. Whether or not the associated ritualesque techniques are objectively valid remains to be seen. A very good question.
Among monks, prayer positioned hands are a common form of greeting, saying goodbye, offering thanks, respect, humility, etc... Is the motion objectively valid? One of my teachers explained that there's subtle energy pathways leading from the heart, down the arms and out the palms of the hand. When these paths are connected via prayer position, the heart chakra opens. Try it. You may feel awkward doing this to people if not used to it because we're soft and loving inside our hearts, which tends to shine through external identity. A little ego death of sorts.
Ones intention with this gesture definitely influences the effect, but I believe an objective result towards the end I described above can be measured.
To address the issue of reiki practicioners requiring money in order to heal. From what I understand, that issue has to do with karma more then anything. I think that one of the precepts of reiki is that there must be some kind of karmaic balance in order for a reiki session to be most effective. Basically, it is considered wrong to get something for nothing if that makes any sense. It does not have to be money, but one of the precepts of reiki is that there must be some sort of exchange to preserve the karmaic balance right off the bat. I believe the other precept is that the person who recieves the healing must ask for it in some way shape or form.
I've heard this before, and in some ways may be valid, but not necessary. The gift of giving reiki is its own reward. The exhange of money, in my experience, dampens its effect.
