So we know that we can project energy and consciousness to achieve healing remotely from a distance having a beneficial impact without the persons conscious awareness. However I always wonder if this is a violation of individual free will? Is it most likely the source of their challenge of alignment with healing will persist or return if they did not consciously choose that new configuration of body/mind/spirit? and more pressing is it appropriate to manipulate their energy field without their active participation, since perhaps they may have choose pre-incarnatively their condition as a tool of self growth/expansion or to learn the healing arts themselves? Thoughts?
I mean all of this in a lighthearted, relaxed context. I am just articulating it kind of quickly so please bear with that :] haha
I gather it depends on the context.
Like if a person clearly needs and would like to be "healed" and feeling better but does not ask for your help specifically, this as one circumstance.
If a person is welcoming the dis-ease as a negative catalyst to use in whatever way, this as one circumstance.
For the mention of person #2, I know that sometimes when I feel sad, it is a wonderful opportunity of healing. But a lot of post-modern healing practitioners would feel like they need to step in to consequently (not that they view it like this) suppress the sadness.
The first person listed has already kind of signaled their desire to become healed, although, of course it wasn't so direct to the occasion. But in a sense there was an indirect consensus.
Coming between the second person is likely a breach of free will, coming between the first is debatable.
Although, we should also discuss free will, I suppose.
This discussion to me implies that healers should be held to a higher standard than a lot of people. How often are people presented and present others with control-domination archetypes? How often do people attempt at breaching other people's free will?
I remember seeing a kid laughing in an airport and one of their parent's told them to stop laughing. The parents were attempting to suppress something so innate, joy.
Then we can discuss auric matters if you consider them relevant. If we are to say there is an aura, then how often does one person's aura influence another's? Let us say there is a classroom of thirty kids with extended auras. Are all those kids breaching free will, or is that just a fact of life?
Putting metaphysics aside, the human unconscious tends to make it so humans mimic other humans. So a happy person sits by a clearly angry person, and one of their moods switches.
Is one of those two breaching the other person's free will?
What is free will anyway? Who is actually experiencing such freedom to say they have it?
It is one thing if we are talking about herbology, nutritional medicine, and other things with some very clear science and studies to build a foundation. But when we are talking about energetic healers, who is to say that the healer would actually provide the right positive catalyst to the patient? Does the healing practitioner truly know what they are doing or are they just faithful? How does the energetic healer know what they are providing is relevant, and how do they know they are being good conduits?
What makes it so there is not an intertwining of karma?
Is the reiki (or other) practitioner truly letting the divine flow through them, or are they imagining they are letting the divine flow through them and imposing their own energy instead?
I mean this respectfully: A lot of healing practitioners are arrogant and ignorant, they imagine all sorts of things about their abilities and reasons for doing doing their work.
Like in the instance I gave of sadness, I have experienced healers taking it upon themselves to change that. That caused suppression in me instead of healing.
I think a lot of people tend to take for granted the responsibility and (real) education that is required to be a healer.
I remember Amazonian shamans would train from a very young age until they were around eighteen, and only then would they be initiated into being more of a shaman.
These days people read a little bit, maybe get an attunement, and then imagine they are ready.
Albeit, some people are surprisingly, innately good and do not need so much practice.
I am not intending anything as a blanket statement.
So I just say it depends.
Helping someone that isn't attracted to the kind of help that you give could be counterproductive to them no matter your intentions of goodwill. Your energy, magnetics, and karmic flow could be abrasive to them even if it is miraculously healing to another.
I say that very few practitioners are eligible to go beyond case by case perspectives.
I like the idea of not even asking to help people or seeking to help people that do not give consensus, but just letting people come to myself. I have noticed that those that TRULY need my help come to me on their own. If I try to do anything, it is just an ego trip of mine.
>>>Why should anything we call dis-ease like the sadness and another's joy be considered dis-ease anyway?
>>>I imagine Amazonian shamanic trainees are continuously going a lot deeper into the healing arts & purity of it. So it is a considerable that they are not initiated for such a long time into taking upon the role.