I have to get this straight...

Is don't see how its possible to heal someone through seeing their clearvoyance. For reasons such as that you may not know them well enough or they may be all the way accross the world, but then again physical is an illusion.

Please someone just tell me about healing in a simple form, if you could it would be much appreciated.

Is don't see how its possible to heal someone through seeing their clearvoyance. For reasons such as that you may not know them well enough or they may be all the way accross the world, but then again physical is an illusion.

Please someone just tell me about healing in a simple form, if you could it would be much appreciated.
To quote someone who knows...

Thought is real, physical is the illusion.

Whats that supposed to mean?

[sash]

It doesn't matter how far someone is in terms of physical distance. Healing with the heart can be applied in close-distance and long-distance healing.

It is important to connect when sending energy, so you are right - you have to have some idea of who you are healing to be able to connect to them and give healing for a specific thing.

I think a connection is as strong whether they are right near you or somewhere else. You might think it is easier when they are closer (actually healing based on touch has proved more successful in my experience) but empathetically you are at the same distance from the target.

So, as I said, connecting seems to be the most fundamental step to any energy exchange. But if you are interested in the technique of healing the Healing with the heart article on this site might be a good start.

Is don't see how its possible to heal someone through seeing their clearvoyance. For reasons such as that you may not know them well enough or they may be all the way accross the world, but then again physical is an illusion.

Please someone just tell me about healing in a simple form, if you could it would be much appreciated.

To quote someone who knows...

Thought is real, physical is the illusion.

Whats that supposed to mean?
I have been wondering, myself, since noticed your signature. And then I saw your comment about clairvoyant healing...

If the physical is an illusion, then what difference does physical separation make? Clearly it does not make a difference.

Personally, of course, I would argue something different. In my humble opinion, the physical is an illusion to the extent that it is illusory. And the mind is real to the extent that it really exists. But who am I to say?

[Quantitativefool]

Hmm if you really want to learn about clarvoiant healing, look up Edgar Cayce and his 20,000 case histories.
-Stu

[sash]

To expand on what I said .. after Sophroniscus' post. Two minds can only be seperated by mental distance, not physical distance. This is in the context of "thought is real, physical is illusion". Where this also infers that thought is more important to healing than physical.

[Jerico]

Also, on the energetic level, we're all the same. So distance really doesn't have much to do with it at all.

(cool pic Sash)

To expand on what I said .. after Sophroniscus' post. Two minds can only be seperated by mental distance, not physical distance. This is in the context of "thought is real, physical is illusion". Where this also infers that thought is more important to healing than physical.
What I said...
To quote someone who knows...

Thought is real, physical is the illusion.
was merely an ad hominem argument, to show the contradiction in what he said...
Is don't see how its possible to heal someone through seeing their clearvoyance. For reasons such as that you may not know them well enough or they may be all the way accross the world, but then again physical is an illusion.

Please someone just tell me about healing in a simple form, if you could it would be much appreciated.
My own thoughts are best expressed in...

Personally, of course, I would argue something different. In my humble opinion, the physical is an illusion to the extent that it is illusory. And the mind is real to the extent that it really exists.
As it seems to me, physical problems often require a physical solution; mental problems often require a mental solution; spiritual problems often require a spiritual solution.

Also, on the energetic level, we're all the same. So distance really doesn't have much to do with it at all.
If we are all the same, then it must be that either we are all sick or we are all well. But that does not seem to correspond to my perception of the true state of things.

But who am I to say?

[Jerico]

If we are all the same, then it must be that either we are all sick or we are all well. But that does not seem to correspond to my perception of the true state of things.

But who am I to say?

Individual, physical bodies do indeed get sick on an independent basis, but our bodies are not what connect us all as one entity. The commonality, then, is energy.

If we are all the same, then it must be that either we are all sick or we are all well. But that does not seem to correspond to my perception of the true state of things.

But who am I to say?

Individual, physical bodies do indeed get sick on an independent basis, but our bodies are not what connect us all as one entity. The commonality, then, is energy.
What is energy? From what I recall, it is the ability to do work, that is, to apply a certain force across a certain distance. For instance one foot-pound is the energy expended in applying a force of one pound across a distance of one foot.

Distance, thus, enters into the definition of energy. But you said...

Also, on the energetic level, we're all the same. So distance really doesn't have much to do with it at all.

If distance is part of the essence of energy, then it has everything to do with energy.

[CFTraveler]

Sophroniscus:

What is energy? From what I recall, it is the ability to do work, that is, to apply a certain force across a certain distance. For instance one foot-pound is the energy expended in applying a force of one pound across a distance of one foot.
This is correct, but the definition of energy is an old definition based on Newtonian physics, and although valuable for measuring energy on the macro-level, it falls short on observations made at the quantum level, such as the phenomenon of twin particles that react to stimulus independent of space or time- These are experiments that show that two particles which are away from each other will react simultaneously to whatever stimulus is applied to one of them.
In this case, it appears that these particles are somehow connected independent of space and time. Whether this connection can be called energetic then goes to what we consider energy to be.
Something that has struck me with Einstein's discoveries is that the derivatives of E=mc2 show that if any particle with more than zero resting mass are accelerated to the speed of light, the mass of the particle approaches infinity. Since infinity is, well, infinite, then what it is saying is that universal energy source is infinite. How is this possible if the rules of energy of what we know (or think we know, anyway) say that energy can't be created or destroyed, only transformed. So where is this infinite energy coming from (or almost infinite, for that matter?)
Quantum physicists that are reading please educate me on this, please. :lol: Also, there is the matter of virtual particles. These are particles that are constantly created and destroyed almost immediately, in a vaccumm. So where did the energy come from to create these particles in the first place? Even if they don't continue to exist...
These are some of the things that make me wonder about what we think we know of the universe.
Soph, I think what I'm trying to say is that the universe is a lot weirder than we think!
Sorry about the hijack, btw. I was on a roll. :roll: 8)

[Quantitativefool]

That 'infinite energy' you mentioned comes from Zero-Point Field...but you can look that up, I really don't want to explain, though I did leave a brief description in the Quantum Mechanics inner-sanctum forum.

-Stu

[Jerico]

What is energy?
I am referring to the energy correlated with the quantum field (the same CFTraveler mentioned in his/her post), and I did not mean the term used by modern physics. Sorry for the confusion.

This is correct, but the definition of energy is an old definition based on Newtonian physics, and although valuable for measuring energy on the macro-level, it falls short on observations made at the quantum level, such as the phenomenon of twin particles that react to stimulus independent of space or time- These are experiments that show that two particles which are away from each other will react simultaneously to whatever stimulus is applied to one of them.
In this case, it appears that these particles are somehow connected independent of space and time. Whether this connection can be called energetic then goes to what we consider energy to be.
Something that has struck me with Einstein's discoveries is that the derivatives of E=mc2 show that if any particle with more than zero resting mass are accelerated to the speed of light, the mass of the particle approaches infinity. Since infinity is, well, infinite, then what it is saying is that universal energy source is infinite. How is this possible if the rules of energy of what we know (or think we know, anyway) say that energy can't be created or destroyed, only transformed. So where is this infinite energy coming from (or almost infinite, for that matter?)
Quantum physicists that are reading please educate me on this, please. :lol: Also, there is the matter of virtual particles. These are particles that are constantly created and destroyed almost immediately, in a vaccumm. So where did the energy come from to create these particles in the first place? Even if they don't continue to exist...
These are some of the things that make me wonder about what we think we know of the universe.
Soph, I think what I'm trying to say is that the universe is a lot weirder than we think!
Sorry about the hijack, btw. I was on a roll. :roll: 8)


Your comment regarding entanglement seems to relate to the properties of energy, but not to its essence.[/*:m:nd08qio2]
The universe may well be infinite. Certainly, a God who can create an infinite universe must be superior to one who cannot. But again, your comment seems to relate to the properties of energy, but not to its essence.[/*:m:nd08qio2]

CF, my understanding of Quantum Physics is that particles aren't destroyed, they disappear. Energy can not be destroyed, only converted into another form. The connundrum comes when the particles disappear, that's the crux of the argument. Did they go into another universe? There are a lot of scientists a lot smarter than me debating that one right now. I'm an armchair Quantum Physicist, so don't take my word for it. By the way, I discovered while visiting the spirit world that my nickname there is "Quark"!

CF, there is also the problem of the "Observer Effect". Did the particles react because the scientist expected them to behave in a certain way? This fits in nicely with the idea of remote healing. In remote healing, comparing it to Quantum Physics...does it work because the energy itself travels in a certain way, or because the healer (the Observer) expects the healing to happen in a certain way. Either way, it doesn't really matter in remote healing...it just works...and shows that on some level we are all truly connected.

[CFTraveler]

CF, there is also the problem of the "Observer Effect". Did the particles react because the scientist expected them to behave in a certain way? This fits in nicely with the idea of remote healing. In remote healing, comparing it to Quantum Physics...does it work because the energy itself travels in a certain way, or because the healer (the Observer) expects the healing to happen in a certain way. Either way, it doesn't really matter in remote healing...it just works...and shows that on some level we are all truly connected.

I was only talking about virtual particles, not conventional quantum particles, and the appearance that they defy the laws of physics. When I first head about them, the theory went that they appeared out of empty space, they existed for an infinitesimal amount of time (thus breaking the 'energy can't be destroyed, just transformed' law) and then dissappeared, because they didn't have enough energy to continue to exist. Then (fairly recently, I haven't been keeping up with the latest explanations) I read that the prevailing theory is that virtual particles (as opposed to regular old quantum particles) appear out of nothingness (still the prevailing belief) but they appear as particle-antiparticle pairs, subsequently destroying each other, thus not existing anymore. It is true that the act of observation changes the outcome of the experiment, but in this case my comment was to show how the laws of Newtonian physics don't necessarily apply to Quantum physics. Once again, I was talking in this case of Virtual Particles. Plus, I don't know if the prevailing theory for the explanation of this phenomenon has changed- What it is now I have no idea. It seems to me, though if the particles are transported to another universe, anything is possible, it could be that they came from another universe in the first place, and don't really fully 'exist' anywhere.

There are groups out there, like Noetic Sciences, that are studying what they called 'nonlocal fields' related to healing, or remote healing, and their observations are very interesting. On a similar vein, Science of Mind movement has done tons of studies on how Prayers work, regardless of the recipient's knowledge of their being prayed for. The last time I looked into this, their findings suggested that prayer works best when you know you're being prayed for, but there is a difference in the outcomes of people who don't know they're being prayed for and people that are not being prayed for. In other works, prayer for healing works. (Remote healing being one of the methods studied.)

Thanks, CF, hadn't heard of virtual particles. Sounds really interesting, will have to look up. Is this related to atom smashing in particle accelerators? Or even newer? It's amazing how much scientists are learning every day. Hopefully, someday, we will be unable to detect the difference between the scientists and the spiritualists. Same belief, different perspective. Won't healing and healthcare take a massive leap when that happens?