Talk:Chakra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chakra article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Chakra as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Ukrainian language Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
The references in this article would be clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking.
Archive
Archives
1, 2



Contents

[edit] Cheeky, language use is emotive...but thought provoking and conceptually sound

Chakras and Science are of different knowledge, cultural and information systems. That said, they may inform one another and be expected to converge as tools of science and consciousness studies iterate and rarify. Currently, orthodox Western medical science does not accept the chakra system though it accepts (or at minimum endorses) the discipline and practice of Acupuncture which is derived from it. Therefore, this warrants the acceptance of chakra models as scientific hypothesis. Bastions of science hold that there is no physically verifiable anatomical or histological basis for the existence of chakras. A similar argument may be proffered for a number of hypothetical theorum that are bolstered in common scientific discourse as approaching the veracity and verifiability of maxim.

[edit] Evidence-based medicine?

"Chakra are often explained according to the protocols of evidence-based medicine like acupuncture points."

I followed the link to evidence based medicine and found nothing that seemed to relate to eastern medical practices but some debate over how doctors are supposed to interpret medical studies. Unfortunately i don't know much more than the average American about acupuncture or chakras so i don't think i can fix this. Judielaine 15:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chakras and Western Science

This page shows a continuation of a regrettable disconnect. I'm a scientist and a mystic, science is a mystical pursuit in the end. The greats of the field didn't work with equations except as proofs of intuition, they work with intuition to better understand Mother Nature. Sadly this is not how science is taught, it is taught in the language of the fundamentalist rather than the mystic. But like all religion its roots are in intuition, the people blathering about "scientific fact" and arguing over words are the ones who don't understand it, who think that science is the words of Gospel handed down by a Nobel prize winner.

There is a reason Mahakali wears a severed head for each letter, language and its rote repetition are not the same as understanding.

Take a look at the Chakras and then at neuro anatomy, or even just run your finger up and down your body and notice how the quality of sensation changes between the areas associated with various chakras. Forget the Sanskrit terms, explain it to someone in plain english and demonstration, don't use the word 'subtle' or any of that new age stuff, just explain it in simple concrete terms.

Its well known in Western Science that emotions have a component of physical sensation and awareness, you sit in an fMRI machine and do exercises involving various Chakras the areas of your brain associated with those areas of your body are going to light up. What is awareness and attention in the brain? It seems pretty obvious that its got to be sort of like a set of dimmer circuits that ramp up or down activity in various brain areas. Bring your awareness to your heart, and your going to ramp up activity in everything you associate with your heart. No need for subtle whatever, this is well within your ability to demonstrate scientifically. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.81.61.206 (talk)

This article is definitely biased. It makes unsupported assertions. Where's the science? Are there any repeatable and verifiable studies done and published in peer-reviewed journals? If not, then all the more reason why a skeptical point of view is valid.Sozzy (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

    I somewhat agree with you, Sozzy, and the previous anonymous, except about not using 'subtle' (which can describe aether or also guage bosons.--Dchmelik (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed OR

I have hidden/removed a large section that was OR and had been awaiting sources for a long while now. Sfacets 03:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which sources does someone not think are reliable? (and a couple notes)

Which sources does someone not think are reliable? How about they say which ones. I added Swami Sivananda and maybe John Woodroffe as sources. I see sources that may be subjective, or rather, abstract, but that is not bad. At least now the article is more cited.

I thought Swami Sivananda said glands were associated with chakras, but he only says the pineal gland is. I might have added a sentence or two about glands, and I have read about it before, but does anyone else recall where it might be in a source? Dchmelik (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is odd the article says the idea of chakras is based more on experience than proof, and especially that to prove them it would be necessary to prove a thought process. Chakras are not mental, not even emotional, but vital--below the level of thought. It is a biological/vital process that has to be proved--that only has to do with life. Plants are alive, but they do not think; why would chakras have anything to do with thought, rather than life processes? (besides astral and mental body chakras, which is another matter entirely.)

[edit] Devanagari mistakes

Whoever typed the Devanagari names of the chakras didn't know, apparently, that the letter i in Sanskrit (short i, that is) is written BEFORE the consonant it follows. So for example svadhisthana is written wrongly as svadhsithana (transliterating the Devanagari in the article). I don't know how to get a Devanagari font into Wikipedia, so am just pointing it out. --Al201.199.132.3 (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)