Quote:
Originally Posted by innerlight
Is it me that finds this statement ironic, by the Catholic church? That it's not compatible with scientific evidence.. I'm pretty sure that God is not compatible with scientific evidence either.
It's funny that Reiki is very similar to spiritual healing in that the practitioner is channeling the healing from the universal source. The only difference is that the healer may not specifically call it "God." The healer also uses symbols to direct the energies.
|
I think you misunderstand the thing about scientific evidence. It is about mysticism and the Christian God is not a mystical God. Scientific evidence and theories would also lift the energy work out of its mystical background and thus it would become acceptable.
That Reiki looks similar to spiritual healing means nothing. When Christian missionaries arrived in Japan for the first time they thought that the devil got there first and created a counterfeit Christianity because it looked so familiar. However, when looking at it in depth Shin Buddhism and Christianity are almost diametrically opposite in terms of understanding human life.
The fundamental difference, as set out by D.T Suzuki also means that if one cannot agree with the fundamental philosophy one can hardly make use of the practices which arise our of it.
God is not the universal source either, it is already arisen from something as Verse 42 of the Dao De Jing states, (Quoted in the interfaith forum a few hours ago) and does not go to the greatest depth possible as acknowledged by Father Merton.
When the verdict 'incompatible' comes from both sides with an explanation why that is so from both sides, I think we may need to consider that it might be true.
I can imagine that this is deeply disappointing and disturbing to many Christians and energy workers and that they wish to raise their protesting voices, but noise is not an argument.