distance healing

[de_paradise]

Here's what I know: my "teacher" can do this if he has the address of the recipient, and although it may be written in a language he doesnt know, and he only speaks Chinese; the "chi" will find the person somehow anyway. He says it takes about 20 minutes for the healing energy to reach around the world from when he starts emitting it.

 

Me: "so how is that possible?"

[Procurator]

Here's what I know: my "teacher" can do this if he has the address of the recipient, and although it may be written in a language he doesnt know, and he only speaks Chinese; the "chi" will find the person somehow anyway. He says it takes about 20 minutes for the healing energy to reach around the world from when he starts emitting it.

 

Me: "so how is that possible?"

first you and he have to prove it

[satyagraha]

many masters have been quoted saying something to the effect of: "there is no time, and there is no difference" distance healing has already been proven (just reiki has been proven to be highly effective) ITs probably something like "we are all just holographic reflections of ourselves" or some quantum theory like that that I'm sure someone will get on and explain far better than I.

[karen]

Material science is always going to reject the concept of non-material action at a distance...but just because something is non-material doesn't mean it's not real, and doesn't mean that it can't be scientific in a real sense.

 

Through the non-material medium of ether, you can transmit a force field beyond space and time, and connect with anyone, anytime, instantaneously. Quantum physics talks about this, in terms of morphogenic fields (the work of Rupert Sheldrake).

 

A force field can act at a distance without much energy, like a forceful character who doesn't do or say much (a Marlon Brando type, for example!). Other people might have lots of energy but don't really get much done in terms of influencing others.

 

Another way to look at it is that the universe is a polarity, with two poles represented by the symbol of the circle and the point, or the periphery and the center. At the periphery, you can connect with everything else on the periphery, because it's an infinite series of planes.

 

As for the practical use of energy at a distance (or force fields), the medical system I use makes use of it all the time - instead of using a remedy in physical form, I often write the name of the remedy on a piece of paper, since the name of a thing carries its force field.

 

Clinically, these "paper remedies" have been shown to work as well as the physical remedies - given that you have the right remedy, of course! Although many people aren't comfortable with that yet, so they use the physical remedies.

 

There's also bioresonance technology that allows a practitioner to do detailed diagnostic workups with people at a distance. When used knowledgeably, that can be a great tool. IMO distance healing the way it's usually done isn't as effective as the more precise and systematic workup. There can be dramatic successes, just like with anything, but unless we have a science, we don't know how to reproduce the success.

 

And a healer might make symptoms go away, but the key is knowing whether that was an actual cure or just a temporary symptom relief or even a suppression that could lead to a worse condition later. That requires more than just the ability to apply a powerful force field, but precise knowledge of the principles of nature involved in total remediation, and how to apply them correctly in each case.

 

With Dr. Hahnemann's medical system (which includes homeopathy), once the diagnosis is made the treatment is automatically known, so correct diagnosis itself (and we're not talking about allopathic disease labels) is the focal point of treatment, and treatment can be transmitted in a variety of ways. We're not limited to physical means.

 

-Karen

[Wun Yuen Gong]

Who is your teacher De Paradise as i know someone that says something very very similar?

[bindo]

I'm not sure anyone knows exactly how it works, but intention plays a key role in distance healing. I've been trained as a bioenergy therapist in the Domancic Method which includes distance healing.

 

During the training, the participants worked on each other, in person, and then we seperated so that we couldn't see each other, and performed psychokinesis on the person, simply by visualizing them and pushing or pulling their energy field. I was able to move someone forward and backward by using my eyes only, and visualization. It wasn't like the person was knocked over on their ass or anything. Just moving them off balance or they would lean forward or backward.

 

I recently worked on an 8 month old boy in Mexico who had been very sick since birth. His parents took him to the emergency room due to a severe lung infection. I did three treatments for him and his condition went away and he was sent home, with a clean bill of health and no medication. His parents were pleasantly surprised at his quick recovery and said it's as if he had never been sick. And, he had been very underweight, but his parents told me the other day that he is now chubby!

 

So, what went on here? I don't know. I tried to give credit to the doctors but the parents said he hadn't improved under the doctors care until I started treating him.

 

The documentary about the great healer Zdenko Domancic has a segment about distance healing. If interested, just do a search on google video for -Think about it bioenergy and go to 29:08 for the entire segment, or 32:42 for the more "scientific" explanation of how/why distance healing works.

 

Gordon

[doc benway]

 

I often write the name of the remedy on a piece of paper, since the name of a thing carries its force field.

 

Hi Karen,

I'm curious as to what is the basis for ascribing some special significance to a name.

In my mind, the name is nothing more than a label and can be changed at will.

The word flower has no aroma, the word food will not help the starving, the name Karen does not allow me to know who you are.

In my view, the name has no special significance, it is simply an artificial construct that can be altered at will - perhaps what is significant is simply the intention of the practitioner. In that case, what is the need for writing down the word? The word is nothing more than a visual representation of the thought.

I know there is a long history of such talismanic word "magic" in many shamanic traditions, including Daoism, but that doesn't necessarily imply value.

Thanks for listening,

Steve

[Guest winpro07]

observed a healer disapear a large brain tumor via a land line. The doctors had given the man about an hour left. Watched a Mormon healer move a tumor out a female patient, no contact. There was a healer in the Santa Cruz Mts. When he walked into the room all i could see was his face, and feet as the light around his head muted everything else, he charged 5 bucks a healing (fixed my kidneys) people walked out of his place free of all kinds of disease all day long. It's been out there forever. If you look for it, you will find it. I found many example that defy sceptical mind, and was one of theose 'prove it' types. I eventually got what i was looking for -proof irrefutable, but proof wasn't the result of looking. The real result, and benefit was believing in my self. Sceptasizm is a disease, and contagous with the only cure being of a purly spiritual nature.

 

Theres a chinese accupuncturist in Berkeley, he fixes severed spinal cordes with electricity.

[karen]

Hi Karen,

I'm curious as to what is the basis for ascribing some special significance to a name.

 

Hi Steve,

 

It's an important question, because it goes to the heart of phenomenology - what is the nature of a thing. I think the key to the issue of naming something is that there are two basic aspects to a thing, as everything has polarity - the outer appearance (form) vs. the phenomenon of the thing (inner, living content).

 

You're right - the outer form of something can be an abstraction that the intellect constructs - like the false disease labels that allopathic medicine gives to conditions. There really isn't a phenomenon that could be rightly called "attention deficit disorder." That name, as well as most of the other diagnostic labels, is an abstraction that isn't grounded in an essential phenomenon of being - it's just a construct. There may be real phenomena there, but by constructing some entity called ADD which has some arbitrary criteria, we're not connecting with the underlying phenomena.

 

The false label game is like worshipping false idols, which is what we often do in our materialistic thinking. (That's why Thich Nhat Han says, "Call me by my true name.")

 

And that's why material medicine has no real cures, because what they're trying to cure are abstract labels, not real phenomena! There are disease entities that can be named, but they are non-material (or supersensible) in essence, and require remedies that act on the supersensible level.

 

So when I use such a remedy to target a supersensible disease entity, the name of the disease and the remedy both have real meaning.

 

The word "food" can't provide material food, of course, and to a certain extent we need material substance; we live in materiality and can't live purely on intention.. yet! And the word "flower" doesn't have an aroma, because it's a phenomenon beyond the senses, and is something we can know supersensibly. But that requires developing our supersensible "organs" of cognition, which is a challenge for us.

 

Goethe, for one, was an amazing scientist (not just a poet) who brought out the understanding of this inner content, or archetypal essence of things. It's like how the seed of a tree carries the essence of the tree, and supersensibly we know they are the same thing, although our material mind wants to divide things up into the different outer forms of a thing and call them different things. For some practical purposes they can be looked at that way, of course, as long as we're not attached to that one level of perception.

 

To me, the meaning of the word magic is like the word mystery - we call something mysterious if we don't understand the phenomenon, or can't ground it in something real. If you're using the name of a thing, or the physical form of a thing for certain effects without knowledge of what you're doing except for the outer effects you get, I'd call that magic. Sounds like allopathic medicine .

 

But if you use a remedy, whether in physical form or thought form, within its rightful jurisdiction, with knowledge of the principle of nature that you're invoking, I wouldn't call that magic. Either you're using a physical carrier to convey information, or you're simply doing without the physical carrier and conveying the information in a different way.

 

If you strip away all the physical matter of a substance, the essential action of a thing is really in the nature of a signal - information. So we're just changing the vehicle but sending the same message

 

-Karen

[doc benway]

Sceptasizm is a disease, and contagous with the only cure being of a purly spiritual nature.

That's what George Bush says, too....

 

Skepticism can be healthy as well.

 

Hi Steve,

 

It's an important question, because it goes to the heart of phenomenology - what is the nature of a thing. I think the key to the issue of naming something is that there are two basic aspects to a thing, as everything has polarity - the outer appearance (form) vs. the phenomenon of the thing (inner, living content).

 

You're right - the outer form of something can be an abstraction that the intellect constructs - like the false disease labels that allopathic medicine gives to conditions. There really isn't a phenomenon that could be rightly called "attention deficit disorder." That name, as well as most of the other diagnostic labels, is an abstraction that isn't grounded in an essential phenomenon of being - it's just a construct. There may be real phenomena there, but by constructing some entity called ADD which has some arbitrary criteria, we're not connecting with the underlying phenomena.

 

The false label game is like worshipping false idols, which is what we often do in our materialistic thinking. (That's why Thich Nhat Han says, "Call me by my true name.")

 

And that's why material medicine has no real cures, because what they're trying to cure are abstract labels, not real phenomena! There are disease entities that can be named, but they are non-material (or supersensible) in essence, and require remedies that act on the supersensible level.

 

So when I use such a remedy to target a supersensible disease entity, the name of the disease and the remedy both have real meaning.

 

The word "food" can't provide material food, of course, and to a certain extent we need material substance; we live in materiality and can't live purely on intention.. yet! And the word "flower" doesn't have an aroma, because it's a phenomenon beyond the senses, and is something we can know supersensibly. But that requires developing our supersensible "organs" of cognition, which is a challenge for us.

 

Goethe, for one, was an amazing scientist (not just a poet) who brought out the understanding of this inner content, or archetypal essence of things. It's like how the seed of a tree carries the essence of the tree, and supersensibly we know they are the same thing, although our material mind wants to divide things up into the different outer forms of a thing and call them different things. For some practical purposes they can be looked at that way, of course, as long as we're not attached to that one level of perception.

 

To me, the meaning of the word magic is like the word mystery - we call something mysterious if we don't understand the phenomenon, or can't ground it in something real. If you're using the name of a thing, or the physical form of a thing for certain effects without knowledge of what you're doing except for the outer effects you get, I'd call that magic. Sounds like allopathic medicine .

 

But if you use a remedy, whether in physical form or thought form, within its rightful jurisdiction, with knowledge of the principle of nature that you're invoking, I wouldn't call that magic. Either you're using a physical carrier to convey information, or you're simply doing without the physical carrier and conveying the information in a different way.

 

If you strip away all the physical matter of a substance, the essential action of a thing is really in the nature of a signal - information. So we're just changing the vehicle but sending the same message

 

-Karen

Thanks Karen, I do appreciate your time and patience with me but still have no idea how writing down a word in English or any other language is meaningful - maybe I'm just dense. From my perspective, much of what you say regarding allopathic medicine has legitimate implications but, unfortunately, the gratuitous solutions that are offered as an alternative are rarely any better and often times useless, other than for the one profiting. I refer here to legitimate illnesses, not psychological or emotional expressions which, unfortunately, are often mistreated by allopaths. I have an open mind to allopathic and alternative practices and do not discount either enitrely, yet both have strengths and limitations. I'm not criticizing your practice but rather referring to the potential for exploitation in this arena in general. No worries - I was just hoping to understand something new...

[Ian]

I refer here to legitimate illnesses, not psychological or emotional expressions which, unfortunately, are often mistreated by allopaths.

 

I must admit that I'm coming round to thinking that there's damn few of the former, when you get right down to it. Can't really marshall any evidence, except to argue that if any "genuinely physical" problems are susceptible to spiritual remedies, then so must they all be....

[doc benway]

I must admit that I'm coming round to thinking that there's damn few of the former, when you get right down to it. Can't really marshall any evidence, except to argue that if any "genuinely physical" problems are susceptible to spiritual remedies, then so must they all be....

There is no separation between physical and spiritual. There is no separation between form and substance. It is all process. Separation is illusion. That is why spiritual remedies and non-spiritual remedies alike have successes, failures, and respective roles in the treatment of illness, IMO.

[karen]

Thanks Karen, I do appreciate your time and patience with me but still have no idea how writing down a word in English or any other language is meaningful - maybe I'm just dense.

 

Ha, well, maybe we'd need to explore what meaning means . But writing a word is just another form of thinking it - it creates a little bit more physicality around it than just thinking it. You can think an abstraction like "attention deficit disorder", which doesn't lead to anything useful or meaningful, or you can think of something that's grounded in the way the universe works, like yin and yang.

 

From my perspective, much of what you say regarding allopathic medicine has legitimate implications but, unfortunately, the gratuitous solutions that are offered as an alternative are rarely any better and often times useless, other than for the one profiting. I refer here to legitimate illnesses, not psychological or emotional expressions which, unfortunately, are often mistreated by allopaths. I have an open mind to allopathic and alternative practices and do not discount either enitrely, yet both have strengths and limitations. I'm not criticizing your practice but rather referring to the potential for exploitation in this arena in general.

 

Exactly. It's an important observation, like declaring that the emperor of the "kinder, gentler" medicine is just as naked as the other guy. And what's considered "alternative" medicine is largely allopathic, so the distinction is basically a false dichotomy. The alternative approaches may be considerably less toxic and cause less iatrogenic disease, but the approach is largely hit-or-miss, throwing treatments at a conditon to see if symptoms will go away. That's allopathy, no matter what the treatment is. There's no unifying, rational system for understanding the real nature of disease and what causes it, and how to go about removing it systematically.

 

When you look at the actual success rate of alternative healing methods with the kinds of complex, chronic conditions people have these days, it's very low. If symptoms are palliated, it's often temporary, and there's no understanding of why the symptoms went away or didn't go away or came back.

 

And we don't even expect that level of understanding - we just go back to the practitioner and take it from there. There's no map of the territory over time, and no itinerary, so to speak. Largely practitioners are dealing with symptoms as they arise for no known reason but proximal causes, not root causes. There's no grounding in an understanding of the nature of disease vs. imbalance, so we get the false disease labels and drugs to target them, on the one hand; and the natural practitioners trying to balance things on the other hand, and neither of them are really working on the causative level.

 

But with a system that has such a map and itinerary, then various treatments can be brought in - whether from the realm of alternative medicine or allopathic medicine - according to how they fit in and further the treatment strategy, in a rational way. We're not in Kansas anymore, no matter how many false dichotomies are created to make it appear like Kansas offers essentially different choices. .

 

I've known a few alternative practitioners, one an MD who studied and practiced cutting edge modalities, who was honest enough with himself to face the reality of the poor results he was getting, and folded up his practice. He soul searched, started from scratch and reinvented his whole approach eventually, but that's a rare thiing for practitioners to do who've already invested so much in their training.

 

So in my view, I don't throw out the baby with the bathwater and discount anything entirely, but use a particular tool for a particular purpose based on knowledge of principles. Otherwise, the practitioner only has one particular toolkit and uses that one in every situation.

 

And just a note about healers making tumors disappear - when the tumor is obstructing a vital function, like cutting off breathing, then of course that's a good thing. But otherwise, a tumor isn't the disease, but the healing process by which the body is trying to contain the disease process. Removing a tumor doesn't necessarily help the course of the disease process at all. That's an example of how the outer appearances of things can be misleading.

 

As for "legitimate illnesses," we first have to understand what an illness is, and to differentiate symptoms, conditions, imbalances, and true diseases. Disease is an energetic phenomenon that is quite different from the arbitrary disease labels of the allopaths, but still there are entities that could rightly be called disease. The reason the classification is so crucial is because different laws of nature apply - if you invoke the law of opposites for a disease, you don't get a cure, and if you invoke the law of similars for an imbalance, you don't get balance.

 

Dr, Hahnemann's system gives us the different jurisdictions of disease, but the basic polarity is natural diseases vs. spiritual diseases. (A functional polarity like yin/yang, being a distinction, not a separation). Spiritual diseases can also have physical effects, and a natural disease like measles can also have spiritual effects. What's labelled allopathically as one disease entity could really be the effect of a multitude of causes - diseases and imbalances that can all be mapped out.

 

Of course the allopathic disease labels are rarely real - even arthritis, migraine, heart disease, each one can have many different causes. One person's arthritis could be a water deficiency; another's could be an emotional disease, but usually there are multiple causes in each case. So the term "arthritis" is only an abstraction based on the appearance of certain symptoms. That's like classifying everyone who has anxiety, dry skin and backache as having a new "disease" called ADB. There are probably millions of people with that disease, and we need a drug for that, don't we?

 

-Karen

[doc benway]

Very well said and I'm in complete agreement with much of your argument.

 

Of course the allopathic disease labels are rarely real - even arthritis, migraine, heart disease, each one can have many different causes. One person's arthritis could be a water deficiency; another's could be an emotional disease, but usually there are multiple causes in each case.

Here I'll have to disagree - many allopathic disease labels are very real insofar as the labeling of a constellation of symptoms and physical abnormalities can lead to successful alleviation and often cure of those systems whereas recognizing and treating the cause may be impossible, too late, or of no value. For example, if coronary artery stenosis from years of smoking, poor diet, and lack of exercise have led to acute myocardial infarction, allopathic intervention is more likely to be of value than altering behavior. Just because allopathic disease labels don't always address root causes or the holistic view of the individual doesn't mean that they aren't real or lack utility.

So the term "arthritis" is only an abstraction based on the appearance of certain symptoms. That's like classifying everyone who has anxiety, dry skin and backache as having a new "disease" called ADB. There are probably millions of people with that disease, and we need a drug for that, don't we?

The term arthritis was never meant to be a specific diagnosis or, at least, it is not used as such by knowledgable practitioners like rheumatologists and orthopedists - it is misused by laypersons and less specialized physicians alike. It simply means joint inflammation. Now there are specific arthritides that have consistent and specific enough groups of symptoms and physical findings to qualify as specific disease entities which can be a valuable guide to healers of various persuasions (ie Rheumatoid arthritis, Reiter's, psoriatic,...) even though the etiology, though well characterized, is still somewhat ambiguous at a deep, holistic level.

 

I completely agree with your last point. There are way too many "clinical syndromes" which are nothing more than labels that doctors use to satisfy their patients' demands to know 'what's wrong' - fibromyalgia is a perfect example - unfortunately, our allopaths are not generally comfortable with "I don't know" type answers - something that should be more supported professionally and socially, IMO.

 

When you get right down to it, we can analyze every symptom and disease process just like we address the Advaita method of "who am I?" - for each level of explanation, there is always another layer of the onion to peel back until we realize that illness and death are as much a part of existence as living and health. Certainly things can be modified to optimize health and longetivity but there is a limit to what can (and should, IMO) be done. We fight death and illness as if they are our enemy rather than accepting them as the inevitable part of existence that they are.

 

It's always nice conversing with you Karen!

[minkus]

Me: "so how is that possible?"

 

Its possible if your master has insight in how energy functions im convinced of that, maybe ask your master on a suitable occasion to heal you and see what it gives

[Buddy]

As a survivor of Non-Hodgkins lymphoma, I'm pleased that I had chemotherapy. Because of it I am here to tell you about it. I'll take that over some speculative "distance" healing, thanks.

[karen]

Hi Steve,

 

Likewise. It's always fun when a conversation makes me expand my thinking. I'm always getting good practice creating new associations in thought, and then articulating them which is the challenging part for me!

 

There's a lot I could say in response to your last post, and I agree with much of it, but I'd like to make one distinction. That's that the disease labels are only describing symptoms, even the labels that seem to be more useful than others. Symptoms are effects of disease, and it's like the metaphor of losing your wallet in the alley - they can't see into the supersensible realm where disease really lies, so they deal with it where the light is better (symptom level).

 

Now, that may actually be the apropriate thing to do in some situations. When I was in septic shock in the ICU, antibiotics were appropriate. Sometimes you need to kill the messenger when the messenger itself becomes dangerous!

 

But the difference is that you can use the antibiotic or the anti-inflammatory with *knowledge* of what you're doing, according to principles of natural law. You can use it understanding that you are only palliating or suppresing symptoms, and that suppressing symptoms drives the disturbance deeper into the system where it will expres itself again later, and might target an even more vital organ. That's how we understand the principle of what we're doing. Then we can say, well, in this particular case, in this moment, that actually is the prudent thing to do. That means being conscious, being attentive in the moment, what we call "participating the patient." So we don't apply a blanket rule and go to sleep and not be consciously engaged in each decision.

 

What the antibiotic or anti-inflammatory can do is buy time. It can never cure per se, according to the curative law of nature. It can make symptoms go away, which is often mistakenly called cure, or healing, but those words are used loosely without understanding the natural principles that give them meaning and distinguish them from one another.

 

In principle, an anti-something drug is used anti-pathically, against symptoms, according to the law of opposites (to increase or decrease something). Disease is an energetic disturbance that gives rise to symptoms, so by killing symptoms you don't cure disease, by definition.

 

Diagnosis means "knowing through", knowing the inner content not the outer appearances (symptoms). Diagnosis in allopathic medicine is only descriptive, not disclosive.

 

In the case of cardiac artery stenosis, the real cause could be (and often is) unresolved emotional trauma. To buy time, anti-pathic treatment can be used, and proximal causes targeted, nothing unkosher about that . But also, given proper treatment all along, the person would have a good chance of not developing such a symptom needing anti-pathic treatment.

 

When you get right down to it, we can analyze every symptom and disease process just like we address the Advaita method of "who am I?" - for each level of explanation, there is always another layer of the onion to peel back until we realize that illness and death are as much a part of existence as living and health.

 

Yes, and yet there is a reason why we are here to experience resistances. Disease in the highest sense could be viewed as a divine cure, itself. The resistance itself is what helps us grow and evolve in concsiousness. Without resistance, we don't have movement, evolution.

 

Certainly things can be modified to optimize health and longetivity but there is a limit to what can (and should, IMO) be done. We fight death and illness as if they are our enemy rather than accepting them as the inevitable part of existence that they are.

 

From what I learned about natural healing for 25 years, I came to the same conclusion, actually, until a new view opened up to me in the last 6 years. Curing disease in way I'm describing doesn't modifiy or optimize anything, but actually removes deeper impingements in the etheric body. (That's the distinction between healing and curing, a functional polarity). How we get to remove those impingements (blockages) according to natural law, so there's no question of "should we or shouldn't we" is maybe a bigger topic that I would need to take a lot more time writing about in order to clearly put across my understanding of it.

 

For now, I'll just say that there's a generative power in nature, which we have evolved over time to have the capacity to use in ways that we couldn't in previous eras. People also didn't have the same subtle energy physiology in ancient times as we do now. We're not grasping for health or longevity out of any fear or attachment, but removing blockages as our higher self is ready to move past them, to continue to unfold our spiritual purpose. That's really the ultimate reason for doing any of this - not to feel better or save lives to accommodate lower desires.

 

Disease is inevitable in one sense, but also what's inevitable is the divine teaching it brings as we rise to the occasion to overcome it. I speak from personal experience, as I'm consciously engaged in this process every day of my life. Sometimes it seems a bizarre choice my higher self made to sign up for this course.

 

But it's like the greatest gift is being offered to us in every experience, and we're only prepared to let go into accepting it conditionally, so the higher self keeps creating more learning experiences to help us keep unfolding and stripping away what blocks us from ourselves.. fortunately these courses have no time limit .

 

Best,

Karen