Jump to content

Talk:Chakra/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

This article needs a rewrite

The article is written as truth, and not exactly from a neutral point of view. The tone of the article needs a rewrite. Stuff like

"A result of energetic imbalance between chakras is an almost continuous feeling of dissatisfaction. When the heart chakra is agitated, people lose touch with feelings and sensations, and that breeds the sense of dissatisfaction. That leads to looking outside for fullfilment."

should be written with weasel words "Hindus believe that" or "The belief is that", etc. GofG ||| Talk 02:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

How do they overlap? If at all... How are they related? Etc...

They are entirely unrelated. The skandhas refer to aggregates that make up the self, including form (physical body), sensation, perception, etc, etc. This is used to explain why there is no permanent identity in a person (see anatta), and why Buddhism denies the existence of a soul. Thanks! --Ph0kin 01:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.)

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)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "twr" :
    • [[Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche]], ''Healing with Form, Energy, and Light''. Ithaca, New York: Snow Lion Publications, 2002. ISBN 1559391766, pp. 84
    • [[Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche]], ''Healing with Form, Energy, and Light''. Ithaca, New York: Snow Lion Publications, 2002. ISBN 1559391766, pp. 84-85

DumZiBoT (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The DMOZ search template, and by implication all DMOZ search links, is being considered for deletion because it violates WP:ELNO #9. Anyone interested in discussing the fate of Open Directory Project (DMOZ) search links is invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Dmoz2. Qazin (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Passive voice abounds

Please clean up the passive voice in the first paragraph of the definition/description section:

"are believed to exist" - by whom?

"Chakras are said to be" - by whom?

"they are considered the focal points" - by whom?

"understood as wheels of light" - by whom?

"are generally believed to exist" - by whom?

Thanks!

Srnelson (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


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.

NPOV

This article treats chakras as a scientific fact. Compare this to the 2006 edition. "In Hinduism and in some related Asian cultures, chakra is thought to be an nexus of metaphysical and/or biophysical energy residing in the human body. The New Age movement—and to some degree the distinctly different New Thought movement have also adopted and elaborated on this theory." The current article has a New Age bias and needs to be returned to neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.77.201 (talk • contribs) 2008-10-29

I agree. Be bold and fix it up. Take the good parts from the older version and incorporate it into the new. I have already tried to remove the bias from the lead. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree too. I tried to fix it up bit.

Furthermore, I tried to add a few references as to how we still lack any objective indications that Chakras are real. I know that this article already links to many other sites and that the adding of new links is discouraged but I really think that a few sceptic sites such as the sceptic dictionary ([1]), the sceptic wikipedia ([2]) and Quackwatch ([3]) should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonLedouble (talk • contribs) 06:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

treating the Hindu-New Age (etc) POV as not-objective is also appropriate, since we're talking a religious-philosophical perspective, not objective fact, and while the controversy links are appropriate, and, in that they link to scientific and medical journals, linking to skeptic sites do not provide authority in and of themselves. Hominidx (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"conventional medical Science" section deleted due to the fact it did not pertain to the subject matter of Chakras. The section sourced research from a totally different system. Please do not re post. 2:21 March 31 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.20.13 (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A Relationship

As creatures born of this planet, it is interesting to note that the 7 Chakras correspond greatly to the 7 LEY Lines of the planetary grid...

7 CHAKRAS=7 LEY LINES

1. Sahasrara: The Crown Chakra

                -The Principle of Mentalism (The Universe is Mental, the All is Infinite Mind, which is the fundamental reality and the womb of all universes).

2. Ajna: The Brow Chakra

                -The Principle of Correspondence (Whatever is Below is like unto that which is Above, and whatever is Above is like that which is Below, to accomplish the miracles of The One).

3. Vishuddha: The Throat Chakra

                -The Principle of Vibration (Nothing rests; everything moves and vibrates).

4. Anahata: The Heart Chakra

                -The Principle of Polarity (Everything is dual, has poles, and pairs of opposites).

5. Manipura: The Solar Plexus Chakra

                -The Principle of Rhythm (Everything has its tides, its rise and fall, its equal pendulum swings to the right and left, its peaks and troughs).

6. Svadisthana: The Sacral Chakra

                -The Principle of Causation (Every effect has its Cause, every Cause has its Effect, all proceeding by Law, never by chance).

7. Muladhara: The Base Chakra

                -The Principle of Gender (Everything has its "masculine" and "feminine" aspects).5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romper10 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

science/NPOV, etc. again

There is a 'chakra (petal) article which I think is better than this one, except because it is more advanced and IMO more objective, it does not have some facts in this article. The petal article also links to the old 'chakrology' article. I hope nothing of value was deleted from that (unless it was always a section in this article). I forgot if the 'petal' article gives a source for its material-body anatomical interpretation of the chakras, but it has a more reasonable viewpoint that this article misses but could integrate. I do not think there really needs to be a separate article. I think the petal article's most reasonable viewpoint of what the number of petals means about what the chakras are (besides plexi in the spine or force/energy/power in those plexi) can be integrated with the view that chakras at the points the petals indicate are nothing more than plexi or their force/energy/power, i.e. electricity, not some undefined spiritual power.

Power described in Yoga and Quabbalah is also in fact connected to those philosophies ideas of electricity, e.g. Fohat or Devi Prakriti and other Shaktis, or Shekhinah in Quabbalah, which is also said to be 'radiant,' lit. radiating, and the electromagnetic spectrum is defined as radiation. So there is not really some 'mystical' idea of chakras that really needs to be explained. I suppose mystics who have not also studied all this may want to explain it, but I think it is more important that the anatomical definition in the petal article and the ideas of force/energy/power/ in esoterism are elaborated more here. Esoterism may not yet define nuclear forces and other physics may not know of (that esoterism may actually have ideas on because it has more forces than physics, though it does not say too much about them other than they somehow exist,) but that is all that is needed for the article, not chi and prana and the Greek congruent term 'bios' (non-material life) as if they are something other than force/energy/power under physical laws. (In tech. writing the words after slashes are dependent on the previous ones, and not vice versa, and the way I write it the later words do have units expressible partly by the previous words.)

The 7 chakras also correspond to the 6 - 7 'principles in man' in Theosophy, which are the ones in 'Taraka Raja Yoga' (look up that term for the appropriate chart in Madame Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine; it and her other writings also have the 7 planes (the latter link explains the 'principles in man.') These principles are actually on the 4 lower planes, and the consciousness 'symbolized' by the tradition about each chakra corresponds to the literature about each chakra. In a way the 7 principles on those 4 planes correspond to the 7 chakras (the 1st principle or 1st emanated chakra, Sahasrara, corresponding to atma/atman, i.e. pneuma; spirit as human spirit one with higher spirit of the 3 higher planes all merely corresponding to the spirit within Sahasrara.) Perhaps this is a lot for most other writers to take in, and I am too focused on articles that are a bit more esoteric to try to improve the chakra and 'petal (chakra) myself, but perhaps this small account of a bit of slightly esoteric (or 'mesoteric,' as Gurdjieff coined, whether useful or not) teaching will give more intellectual meditative contributors or open-minded scientific ones more ideas on how to improve the two. The petal one seems more scientific and the main 'chakra' seems to be a verbosely overdone version of what the Dharma (Vedanta/Upanishads or non-Sanatana) originally stated in a mere sentence for each. Of course later authors explained it for people that needed more explanation, including the world outside India.

In summary, if the article says things like 'this chakra is about all this stuff,' why not connect it to the 'principle in man' that really corresponds in the geometry of the universe? (in Classical Platonic Physics, i.e. not restricted to materiality but explaining levels of consciousness and what sort of organs and their hormones work on that sort of consciousness that psychology explains the hormones are about.)

In succint summary with the reason in the previous paragraph, most of the article is alright in giving the various philosophical sources, though it omits the good mathematical petal (chakra) explanation. Another mathematical explanation should get rid of the subjective statements like 'this chakra "has to do" with "these 'issues.'"' It is preposterous to say they have to do with any issues. They are pure consciousness, i.e. logos (reason) within Logos (causality,) stated as I hope non-meditating scientists at least think are grounds for dialogue. In the Hermetic axiom, paraphrased 'as is below so is above; as is above so is below,' the chakras do not have to do with any so-called issues that I have only seen in New Age writing and no Vedanta (even modern Vedanta, though I am no Phd expert.) What they do have to do with is the following:

emanation plane (dimension of math/discourse.) - principle in man - chakra
1 (9.) divine spirit - divine-human spirit - sahasrara
2 (8.) divine spirit - spirit-soul - ajna
3 (7.) divine spirit - abstract mind - vishudda
4 (6.) divine-human spirit - concrete mind - anahata
5 (5.) mental - emotional mind - manipura
6 (4.) ethereal - life-aura - swadisthana
7 (3-dimensional.) material - life-aura within body - muladhara

As you can see, each chakra can easily enough be said to have to do with a level of human consciousness reflecting undifferentiated consciousness. Each of those is what the 'issues' New Agers emphasize really have to do with. 1900s physics-prefering scientists may consider my description as preposterous unless they are mathematicians open to the idea that (transpersonal) psychology can study more than the 3-dimensional body, because electricity is parameterized in time, and the nervous system indeed uses electricity (just be aware neurologists may not say so lightly.) IMO the chakras are nothing more than electromagnetism within plexi described in the chakra (petal) article. If someone more meditative to the extent they deliberately push their consciousness out of ajna (pituitary or pineal electromagnetism; I forgot) and even their forehead in some kind of 'energy wheel,' then the diagram in the 'petal (chakra)' article that shows that still makes sense. However, this article also has the similar typical pictures of chakras breaking beyond the boundaries of the nerve plexi where they would be doing electromagnetic vibration within the vertebrae and even organs. I hope most people would prefer to keep their consciousnesss centered within their nerves and not as in the pictures in this article, whether they have some reason to focus it outside of the body like in the petal article. Of course there are some reports of people doing this and I know reasons that may be reasonable, yet it sounds more like abstract focusing. This article just seems to big now and I am speculating on ways to make it succinct and to the point--a NPOV one.

Hopefully this gives some more ideas of how to do that to some of the current writers of this. Another note is that the chakras correspond to the 7 Shaktis corresponding to the creative heptads in most mythologies. In that way Kundalini is mostly only in muladhara and when Shakti is very active higher (which it is by definition to allow consciousness) one can also just give it a different definition. At least one to three other Shaktis besides Kundalini are described as electric/magnetic, or in the nerves. This and the other topics are too much for me to go into in that article; I know not how those who write/like it want it and what audience they and WP want it for. Hopefully I have just given them/you some ideas on how to better integrate the Yoga and Theosophy articles. I know some Sanatana Dharmis may not like some neo-Theosophy, but the earlier kind did try to give the West a better view of Dharma and encourage its study and context, so this article should also integrate whatever of its 6 philosophies are relevant: is there a chakra category yet? There is a vitalism category, but I am unsure if that would be more appropriate than a Kundalini Yoga or Acupuncture or Chi Kung or Tai Chi category or 'Eastern vitalism' category. What do you think? Sorry about the long-winded talk... but that is also what this page is for... some people have judged me as incomprehensible, so hopefully a few points I mention will be discussed in smaller sections below.--Dchmelik (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

References to chakra are made in several TV shows including Avatar: The Last Airbender in which the protagonist - Aang must unblock his chakra flow to enter the Avatar State or Naruto, in which chakra is the main energy flow which enables characters to perform various forms of jutsu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astro.scope (talk • contribs) 12:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Angels

I have heard the assertion that angels have something to do with chakras, at least within New Age literature. It would be interesting if the article could include a note about angels. ADM (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have heard that the Tooth fairy is responsible, although a friend of mine says it's just Leprechauns in drag. It would be interesting if the article could include a note about all three equally viable hypotheses. - 71.222.105.236 (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

I have removed the following section, because it has been unsourced for over two and a half years, and appears to be original research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research):

Endocrine system

The primary importance and level of existence of chakras is posited to be in the psyche. However, there are those who believe that chakras have a physical manifestation as well.[1] Some authors say that there is a relationship between the positions and functions of the chakras and of the various organs of the endocrine system. It is noted by many that there is a marked similarity between the positions and roles described for chakras, and the positions and roles of the glands in the endocrine system, and also by the positions of the nerve ganglia (also known as "plexuses"[citation needed]) along the spinal cord (branching to plexuses by endocrine glands or organs), opening the possibility that two vastly different systems of conceptualization have been brought to bear to systemize insights about the same phenomenon. By some, chakras are thought of as having their physical manifestation in the body as these glands and their subjective manifestation as the associated emotional, mental, and spiritual experiences.[citation needed]


Reidlophile (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This image from Leadbeater's "The Chakras" suggests this (or at least a close variant of it) isn't original research. I remember similar diagrams in Anodea Judith's "Wheels of Life" too but don't have either book to hand to provide references, does anyone else? K2709 (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


I have changed the paragraph about endocrine glands to more accurately reflect the source (which can be found in google books). I have also removed the diagram of the endocrine glands, which seemed largely superfluous considered it's referenced by a single paragraph, based on one source.

I have also temporarily removed the following information, although it is well sourced, because it doesn't make sense. Plexuses are interconnected networks of nerves which provide motor innervation, while ganglia are largely sympathetic and parasympathetic structures consisting of a ball of nerve cells. Does anybody who's read the given source know which of these two Leadbetter associated with chakras?

"According to Leadbeater, some also associate the chakras with particular nerve ganglia along the spinal cord, due to their connections to plexuses near the chakras. Leadbeater considered the evidence for this inconclusive however.[2]"

In addition, it is bad editing to simply reinsert removed material without entering into a discussion about the reasons for doing so.

Reidlophile (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


In reference to above: sorry K2709, I didn't realise it was you who reinserted the material. I still think it's bad form to put any information back until we've reached a consensus though.

Reidlophile (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

My bad, not having a lot of time I'd assumed multiple agreeing sources constituted consensus.

The Shining Ones comes in two versions, and only the old, single-author Google version contains your replacement quote, so unfortunately that ref is now mismatched. The original paragraph did in fact reflect the more up to date text extremely closely: "...are considered to be the metaphysical counterparts of the physical glands in the body and are said to 'knot' the spiritual..." etc.

I think the diagram usefully lets readers judge any correlation for themselves. The article does contain plenty of other mentions of specific endocrine glands referenced by other sources (and Leadbeater was mentioning them too).

My reading was that Leadbeater agreed with the gland association but wasn't entirely sold on either of the others. Not being an anatomy expert, for me the most important part of that deleted sentence was that Leadbeater had also written about the endocrine idea, so if it's staying deleted he would be a useful second reference for the other paragraph (which now misleadingly implies it's a single person's interpretation).

K2709 (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


Well it was just the one source -- the Leadbeater stuff you put in didn't mention endocrine glands (which are ductless glands which release hormones i.e., chemical messages), it mentioned plexuses and ganglia (both of which are nervous system structures, i.e., dealing with electrical signals) -- and then it confused the two.

How about if I change the paragraph to:

"The primary importance and level of existence of chakras is posited to be in the psyche. However, there are those who believe that chakras have a physical manifestation as well.[22] The author Philip Gardiner, for instance, has described the chakras as metaphysical counterparts to the endocrine glands [23], while Leadbeater noted a marked similarity between the positions of the two and the roles described for each."


That way it matches your reference more closely, and it's left open to add more authors if we find more sources. Obviously it'd be ideal to find a reference for including Leadbeater.

I won't update it until you've messaged back though, to save multiple edits.

Reidlophile (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That looks fine...all I'd add is that a quick scan through [4] has turned up some of the Wheels of Life material (eg p20/22) - so an "and Anodea Judith" addition to the above would be valid and worthwhile. A close link is here: [5]. K2709 (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


Sounds good...I've just searched inside Leadbeater's The Chakras though [6] and I can't find any reference to the chakras. Searching for "gland" throws up some stuff about the pineal gland, but beyond that there's nothing. Do you have another source for Leadbeater?

If not, I could always put that Anodea Judith associated endocrine glands and chakras, as in the above paragraph, and just mention that Leadbeater associated Anja with the pineal gland, which is part of the endocrine system.

Reidlophile (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Leadbeater page I was drawing from is omitted from that google books preview (you can find it by searching for 'rash' in the other link), but looking at it again you're right - though it's usable for sourcing the originally removed plexus and ganglion material I've obviously crossed some wires interpreting it as linking it to glands, so I think your fallback plan is the way to go. K2709 (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've made the changes to the article.

Reidlophile (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The editing of the segment would have done the whole article more justice, had the integrity and the details of the original been kept intact, while adding the references of the editing. 96.246.55.35 (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)A. Kaye Aug. 1, 2010

I have done my best to clean up this article a lot...I was responsible for a lot of the information that was in it before that came from a western, new-agey point of view, such as the bit about endocrine glands and so forth, and I have since grown up a bit and learned a lot more about the topic from a more authentic point of view, which is not to say there is nothing in the correspondances, but if there is, it is not that important from the point of view of a practitioner of tantra. I have tried to move the emphasis back to the eastern point of view, and included information from the point of view of Vajrayana buddhism. I have merged all the sections which deal with western interpretations into one section. I haven't wanted to delete anything, out of respect for people's beliefs, but that section is still pretty messy. I hope the rest of the article is more illuminating, however.

User:krsnajinana 21:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is this article in American English?

Can anyone explain why this article is written in American English? To conform with WP:ENGVAR it should be in Indian English which, as far as spelling is concerned, is identical to British English. Thanks for any clarification. --Yumegusa (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll take silence as absence of dissent, and in light of discussion at WT:IN I'll make a start on editing this article shortly. --Yumegusa (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"Chakra is in naruto and there is no way it is real" - shouldn't someone remove this? I couldn't find it when editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.167.96.196 (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

qigong

i flagged this section as self-contradictory, because it seems to first state that meridians are equivalent to nadis, and then goes on to proclaim the similarities "superficial". (i also believe prana and qi to be commonly regarded as more or less referring to the same thing.) the third (unsourced?) paragraph overall seems a bit POV, although the info on differences in the systems is of value to the article. k kisses 19:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to flag this section as contradictory, just to rewrite it to reflect the equivalency of both systems. Within the Reiki system both, (the original?) Indian Prana/Chakra and the Chinese Taoist Meridian, systems of esoteric psycho-neuro-physiology, have been perfectly synchronized together, and establish a "united universal" esoteric psycho-neuro-physiological system. 96.246.55.35 (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Kaye Sunday, Aug. 1, 2010

deleted bits

"Unique interpretation of the chakras system model is presented in the form of Sacred geometry or spiritual symbols of ancient India and Egypt. It's Ankh model of chakras system.[3]

Some elements are made from metals: aluminum, copper, brass, iron, zinc, and cupronickel. Elements in the shape of spheres are established from color glass, stone, ceramics, amber, turquoise, corals and different crystal: amethyst, azurite and nephrite.

Ankh model of chakras system Ankh model of chakras system (step2)

Such known elements as ida, pingala, sushumna and chakras are presented in model (step 1). Additionally elements are established on the model (step 2), in the form of a layer of spheres from amber, corals, turquoise, quartz, color glass, pearls, ceramics, onyx, malachite, nephrite, amethyst, and azurite."

didn't seem too relevant, so i took it out. k kisses 20:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Chakras are Like Soul or dense conscious space within human, but It can not be proved

There is no way to Prove them, at least in present time. They are definitely there but is not confined to the perception of human mind. They are neither a substance, nor anatomical part, nor anything which can be conceived worldly. They can be perceived privately but then that perception can noway be given. No way be proved. When Chakras are rose and become more vibrant then there are emotional changes comes apparently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.227.10 (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

See Russell's teapot. If there is no way to prove the existence of a particular thing, don't make silly claims about its existence. 150.101.58.177 (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The teapot doesn't apply, because intersubjective verifiability exists via energy work systems that teach direct sensing of chakra energy flow (embedded in practices such as Qigong). These work and thus generate proof, but, only for those who take the trouble to learn them. 92.30.11.241 (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
No they don't! This article should be flagged as primitive superstition. 86.179.181.163 (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Reality check

Perhaps a section explaining that chakras have "no proven relationship with the anatomy or physiology of the human body."?[7]

More to the point, chakras have no proven basis in reality (i.e. there's no proof that they exist). Personally, I think the concept is just a bunch of superstitious malarkey. It's rather unhealthy (and unencyclopedic) that the article doesn't express any skepticism along these lines. If I were to write a "criticism" section, I'm pretty sure that it would be deleted by dogmatic ideologues. Fuzzform (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
In the wikipedia site on God, there's a discussion on the existence of god which includes not just pro-arguments but also links to atheism. Just as there's no proven physical relationship between the universe and a creator, there's no physical proof of the body and the Chakras. Similarirly there's a controversy section on Occam's razor, which is essential to skeptical theories levelled against religions. So if there's a skeptical view on god and a skeptical view on skepticism, a skeptical view of Chakras should be heard. So by all means, I'd encourage you to to add a skepticism section! However if you are always being as intellectually snoppy as in this post ("superstious malerky), maybe your arguments aren't deleted for being intellectually superior but for lack of civility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.201.151 (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I would support a reality check in this article too. To be civil to such unfounded theories is, IMHO, below human. To call it intellectual superiority is just a snide way of saying that it is right, as far as we can tell. Chakras don't exist. Period! 86.179.181.163 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Element of Fiction"

"This article describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style (January 2011)" This is vandalism, some kind of childish joke and should be removed. If it in any way made sense you would have to place this same "fiction" accusation on hundreds of thousands of pages for any human concept that doesn't relate directly to an observable physical object. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crucialfelix (talk • contribs) 10:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Bring it on, then! Let's get rid of all the bunkum on WP. 86.179.181.163 (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I don't understand why wikipedia has to be a story book? I xcome here for faxtses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.143.144 (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

chakras and neurological pathways

for all scientists out there like myself, have you considered that chakras may indeed be neurological pathways in the human body and that there are actually 6 total? Eye, Eye, nostril, nostril, ear, ear, and the mastery of all six of those makes and completes the seventh (the entire human body), and full sensory awareness is only obtainable if one masters all six, develops the seventh, and awakens the eight-which is ESP or extra sensory perception? The eight chakra could be the third eye and it could only be obtained when all six of the chakras are mastered. That is, when all six neurological pathways are open so the seventh can then be exercised, mastered, and the third eye or the eight chakra can then be opened. It's only a concept. null on it, comment on it.

But we could consider that this theory is something I have just come to think of. Where as I suppose at least the theory of chakras has to some extent over the last few thousand years been experienced and agreed by millions of practitioners who meditate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.246.214 (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

T3D3O3, BALANC3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.226.144 (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sophistry. So what? Totally unsupported nonsense! 86.179.181.163 (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner

This section is not good enough. It should be rewritten, with more of an overview, less nesting of subordinate clauses, no nested parentheses, and with correct citation, quotation, and reference. As it stands, it appears to be covered by the no-original-research rules, so should be cut. Leegee23 (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe 'Revision as of 23:02, 16 April 2012' not 'm'? But responds to request for more about Rudolf Steiner. Qexigator (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Further revision 18:05, 17 April 2012, Bringing together the paras. about Steiner. Qexigator (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

About Hgilbert's Revision of 20:13, 17 April 2012 -- Florin Lowndes particularly stresses that his proposition is in respect of Steiner's final version of POF, therefore mention of this should be reinstated in due course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qexigator (talk • contribs)

I agree that the whole section remains in need of improvement. Discussions of the various editions of the POF do not belong in this article...in fact the whole Lowndes section is of highly questionable relevance. hgilbert (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, as ever, the aim is to select an appropriate article and then be reasonably succinct for the information of the reader and in proportion to the context and content, while not mis-paraphrasing the author referred to (perhaps due to inadvertent taint of POV), and making use of links to avoid duplication. If the reader is given the reference s/he can decide whether or not to follow it up, then or later. I have to admit that something more may be required here (and elsewhere) to satisfy Qexigator's 'bookability' test, but to ensure that the reader is made aware of what distinguishes Steiner's 'path', reference to the article on 'Anthroposophy' or 'Anthroposophical view of the human being' or 'Rudolf Steiner's exercises for spiritual development' seems to be called for. Perhaps what is needed are some further authentic citable references (in some of those articles) from or about Steiner's literary legacy, including his "Leading Thoughts: Anthroposophy as a Path of Knowledge", as in 'Esoteric path: Paths of spiritual development' section of Anthroposophy article, but I see no mention of his lectures "Karmic Relationships: Esoteric Studies", which are accessible here for instance [8]. Could the article Rudolf Steiner's exercises for spiritual development be a place for this, if not previously tried and conclusively rejected? Qexigator (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

"Wrong IPA?"

The Sanskrit pronunciation [ˈtʃəkrə̃] links to the IPA for Sanskrit, but this doesn't include the first couple of symbols used in the word. They do appear in the one for Hindi and Urdu. Can someone knowledgable fix this thanks... 121.74.68.233 (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Why only Western books referrred?

I am seeing contents came from Sir Arthur Avalon et. all.

Why Indian Authors are not quoted here where this topic belongs to Indian Philosophy.141.160.26.251 (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Vector Versions Available

I have completed a series of symbols for the seven primary chakras in vector format. They are now linked in the description pages of the GIF files presently used in this article.Morgan Phoenix (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


Petals / Tepals

I was wondering whether the chakra's "leaves" should actually be referred to as [Tepals] - not Petals ? Nea Geo (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hopi chakras

The Hopis also have a chakra system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.137.109 (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

POV

I can understand the revert of my recent edit [9] in relation to the POV of the lead. Whilst the lead might treat the subject with a NPOV, I really don't think the rest of the article is quite as good, which is why I added that statement to attempt to balance out what comes later. I'd quite like to re-add my statement, but would like to know what others think first. Pascal (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's ridiculously inappropriate. Chakras have nothing to do with science, it's not required that the concept should be "approved" scientifically. The lead clearly says that it's a belief in certain religious traditions. If there's a problem with certain sections, then tag or fix those sections. — Jean Calleo (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh I'm sorry. I guess I got confused by the section that says "Chakra is a concept referring to wheel-like vortices which, according to traditional Indian medicine, are believed to exist in the surface of the subtle body of living beings.[2] The Chakras are said to be "force centers" or whorls of energy permeating, from a point on the physical body, the layers of the subtle bodies in an ever-increasing fan-shaped formation." Yeah, nothing about that needs to have ANY scientific backing at all... Pascal (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Please keep the sarcasm, it's not helpful. The article describes the beliefs about chakras in a neutral manner, it doesn't make any factual statements. Or if it does, it's because there's only so many times you can repeat in a single article words like "is said to be", "is described/depicted as", "is believed to be"—without it becoming excessive. Your addition makes us editors look stupid, thinking it's necessary to state the obvious. Look at articles about, say, some mythological creatures — nowhere do they say that the modern scientific community doesn't think they exist. It'd be stating the obvious and it's not necessary unless you think Wikipedia mostly caters to an audience of completely uncultured morons.
If no one else chimes in on their own, you could try seeking out a third opinion. — Jean Calleo (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. This is why I came here instead of just reverting your edit. However, at some point in the near future I'm going to go through the article with a fine tooth comb. Some of the sentences really bug me. Pascal (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
To be fair though, it's a completely different situation when someone searches for mythical creatures. They're generally already known as mythical, whereas pseudoscience/religion/etc often makes factual claims about how the real world works with no evidential basis, so I don't think you can compare the two. I do think it's quite important to mention that scientific understanding has found no evidence of chakras (as is currently mentioned in the article), because otherwise, many people may visit the page looking for not just information about what chakras are from a theoretical/spiritual point of view, but for actual scientific verification of the validity of chakras. I'm not suggesting Wikipedia caters to uncultured morons, but that it caters to a wide variety of people, including those who are easily misled by ideas that are inviting and holistic, but patently untrue. The scientific consensus is absolutely appropriate to mention prominently in such articles IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
People often make claims that Chakras are real, it's worth clarifying the scientific literature on the subject. Wikipedia makes the lack of evidence in homeopathy very explicit. We should do so here. 68.96.94.208 (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Science is just one way of knowing things. It's not the end-all and be-all of existence. Art is just as important, unless you want to live in a sterile solution. Chakras are a way, just a way, to understand something about human behavior. Therefore, the study or the topic of the chakras is one of the Humanities. 74.100.137.109 (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I just came here from the Crystal Healing page, and I'd like to add my vote for including science on this page. They do on the Crystal healing page, the best they can at least. People do come here for general information. Pages for mythological animals should and would include scientific information about their existence if it were available. No one implied it is necessary that it be "approved", but science should have a say.
I'm all for Pascal going through it with a fine-toothed comb. Have at it.
Cburke91 (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If this image is appropriate on this page, can an editor set up the jpeg of this logo for proper loading on the page.

Thanks Mike

Collectimatic (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Why these article has Issues, i think in these kind of History/Religious Article should be a more strict control by the Wikipedia management

Why these article has Issues, i think in these kind of History/Religious Article should be a more strict control by the Wikipedia management, i m not saying that the Article is wrong, actually is very good, but i think should be more though controls on these kind of serious articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joan Bozoky (talk • contribs) 11:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I cleared out three new tags, cleanup, worldwide and toolong. None of them are relevant. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hopi chakras

The Hopis also have a chakra system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.137.109 (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

POV

I can understand the revert of my recent edit [10] in relation to the POV of the lead. Whilst the lead might treat the subject with a NPOV, I really don't think the rest of the article is quite as good, which is why I added that statement to attempt to balance out what comes later. I'd quite like to re-add my statement, but would like to know what others think first. Pascal (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's ridiculously inappropriate. Chakras have nothing to do with science, it's not required that the concept should be "approved" scientifically. The lead clearly says that it's a belief in certain religious traditions. If there's a problem with certain sections, then tag or fix those sections. — Jean Calleo (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh I'm sorry. I guess I got confused by the section that says "Chakra is a concept referring to wheel-like vortices which, according to traditional Indian medicine, are believed to exist in the surface of the subtle body of living beings.[2] The Chakras are said to be "force centers" or whorls of energy permeating, from a point on the physical body, the layers of the subtle bodies in an ever-increasing fan-shaped formation." Yeah, nothing about that needs to have ANY scientific backing at all... Pascal (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Please keep the sarcasm, it's not helpful. The article describes the beliefs about chakras in a neutral manner, it doesn't make any factual statements. Or if it does, it's because there's only so many times you can repeat in a single article words like "is said to be", "is described/depicted as", "is believed to be"—without it becoming excessive. Your addition makes us editors look stupid, thinking it's necessary to state the obvious. Look at articles about, say, some mythological creatures — nowhere do they say that the modern scientific community doesn't think they exist. It'd be stating the obvious and it's not necessary unless you think Wikipedia mostly caters to an audience of completely uncultured morons.
If no one else chimes in on their own, you could try seeking out a third opinion. — Jean Calleo (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. This is why I came here instead of just reverting your edit. However, at some point in the near future I'm going to go through the article with a fine tooth comb. Some of the sentences really bug me. Pascal (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
To be fair though, it's a completely different situation when someone searches for mythical creatures. They're generally already known as mythical, whereas pseudoscience/religion/etc often makes factual claims about how the real world works with no evidential basis, so I don't think you can compare the two. I do think it's quite important to mention that scientific understanding has found no evidence of chakras (as is currently mentioned in the article), because otherwise, many people may visit the page looking for not just information about what chakras are from a theoretical/spiritual point of view, but for actual scientific verification of the validity of chakras. I'm not suggesting Wikipedia caters to uncultured morons, but that it caters to a wide variety of people, including those who are easily misled by ideas that are inviting and holistic, but patently untrue. The scientific consensus is absolutely appropriate to mention prominently in such articles IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
People often make claims that Chakras are real, it's worth clarifying the scientific literature on the subject. Wikipedia makes the lack of evidence in homeopathy very explicit. We should do so here. 68.96.94.208 (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Science is just one way of knowing things. It's not the end-all and be-all of existence. Art is just as important, unless you want to live in a sterile solution. Chakras are a way, just a way, to understand something about human behavior. Therefore, the study or the topic of the chakras is one of the Humanities. 74.100.137.109 (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I just came here from the Crystal Healing page, and I'd like to add my vote for including science on this page. They do on the Crystal healing page, the best they can at least. People do come here for general information. Pages for mythological animals should and would include scientific information about their existence if it were available. No one implied it is necessary that it be "approved", but science should have a say.
I'm all for Pascal going through it with a fine-toothed comb. Have at it.
Cburke91 (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Chakra logo

If this image is appropriate on this page, can an editor set up the jpeg of this logo for proper loading on the page.

Thanks Mike

Collectimatic (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Why these article has Issues, i think in these kind of History/Religious Article should be a more strict control by the Wikipedia management

Why these article has Issues, i think in these kind of History/Religious Article should be a more strict control by the Wikipedia management, i m not saying that the Article is wrong, actually is very good, but i think should be more though controls on these kind of serious articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joan Bozoky (talk • contribs) 11:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I cleared out three new tags, cleanup, worldwide and toolong. None of them are relevant. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chakra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Upanishads

To state that

"Concept of Chakra is found in some of the oldest Hindu texts such as Vedas and Upanishads.[4][5]"

better sources than this New Age trivia are needed.

References

  1. ^ Saraswati, MD (1953 - 2001). Kundalini Yoga. Tehri-Garhwal, India: Divine Life Society, foldout chart. ISBN 81-7052-052-5
  2. ^ “The Chakras” by C.W. Leadbeater
  3. ^ Шатилов К. К. «Лечебные пирамиды. От Атлантиды до наших дней.» С-т Петербург. Изд-во «Вектор» 2008 г. ISBN 978-5-9684-0918-8
  4. ^ Balancing the Chakras, Michael Solis, Charles River Editors, p.3
  5. ^ The Venus Blueprint: Uncovering the Ancient Science of Sacred Spaces, p.220, Richard Merrick, North Atlantic Books

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You can look into these sources by reliable publishers:[11][12] There are more, but for information like this, these two sources are enough. Capitals00 (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chakra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Chakra images defy the descriptions

I don't know which is more mistaken and perhaps both are. "thousand multi-colored petals" yet all the petal are purple? "upward facing triangle" yet the triangle faces downward? "Yellow triangle at the centre" yet the triangle is red. It's fair enough that there are different representations but when the text appears beside an image like this it's very poor that the descriptions and images are so different. 49.183.142.71 (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The petals look multiple shades of purple to me. But yeah, someone with some knowledge about this should either correct the pictures or the text. I don't have the knowledge.
This reminds me of a passage from Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency in which Dirk tries to use his new I-Ching calculator: "The little book of instructions suggested that he should simply concentrate 'soulfully' on the question which was 'besieging' him, write it down, ponder on it, enjoy the silence, and then once he had achieved inner harmony and tranquility he should push the red button. There wasn't a red button, but there was a blue button marked 'Red', and this Dirk took to be the one." ~Anachronist (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Endocrine system

I've just changed the final sentence from:

  • These associations remain speculative, however, and have no empirical validation.

to

  • These associations are speculative, however, and have no scientific validation.

bearing in mind the {{non sequitur}} tag at the end which states:

  • reason=Seems dismissive and biased.Metaphysical concepts are faith based.Empirical studies are impossible.Only Scientologists make such absurd claims of empirical validation of religious beliefs.Unless in the context of Scientology like cult description, the tagged sentence is unfair. Please, clarify whether the endocrine allegations are constructed in a Scientology like context. The section does appear to place the endocrine allegations in a believer like context with clear separation of faith and science. The endocrine allegations as described do not appear to be placed in a cleric like context where the cleric asserts empirical methodology; as is known of in Scientology. Alternatively. These endocrine allegations are empirically validated by anatomical examination. In most humans, endocrine system parts are located in similar place within the human body.

I've made the two changes:

  1. We should be using 'remain' since it implies that the status of speculation is liable to alteration. It is not so according to mainstream scientific evidence, and that is what we report on Wikipedia. It is inappropriate for an encyclopedia to speculate in its own voice.
  2. The qualifier "scientific" should be preferred to "empirical", as we ought to be clear about what kind of empiricism is being summarised. Since empirical is defined as "verifiable by observation or experience", it opens the door for using subjective experience to determine the validation, contrary to the principles of the scientific method. It is from the viewpoint of mainstream science that there exists no verification for the speculative association between the chakras and the endocrine system, and that is the viewpoint from which we should be writing. --RexxS (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

References to Shakti need explanation

Several places in this article say things like "the Shakti is Shakini". Are the Shakti female deities? This is unclear. Can someone familiar with the term please clarify the article, so that it is less technical? Thanks. WheresSnickers (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Science of Chakras

I think there should be a section on criticisms towards Chakras and how scientifically accurate the concept is.

Articles like Soul talk about whether or not the concept is scientific accurate. We should probably do the same for this. CycoMa (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The concept is part of the subtle body, not an aspect of any part of modern medical science. The article does however describe supposed correspondences with other systems including anatomy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

What I mean is that this concept of Chakras seems like pseudoscience to me.CycoMa (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It's part of a philosophy in Hinduism and Tantra that is in the domain of religion and spirituality, from medieval times. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the recent changes to the article

Per WP:BRD I am opening a discussion to discuss the recent changes and see if a consensus for them can be formed or not, given that the changes have been reverted (and therefore objected to) by myself and two other editors. This is the edit and there are a lot of changes made there and from the very first word there are issues. "Chakra(s)" is not an improvement. The change to the transliteration of the word is not supported by the source referenced. Western analogues is unsourced. The word chakra does not need WP:SCAREQUOTES. I could keep going but I'm seeing an issue with nearly every line changed, and just overall these changes are not an improvement. Hopefully we can start a discussion about this rather than go back and forth reverting. - Aoidh (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the intention was most likely to gain a type of scholarly distance.
By putting chakra in scarequotes we are no longer referring to metaphysical entities.
Further more it is good to distinguish Chakra(s), because multiple traditions have many chakras. They are not a monolith. I could go on, but this is why I think those edits are better
Chakras are not one monolithic concept or idea James Grossman (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
That's not what scare quotes mean, and "Chakra(s)" does not mean anything near what you're suggesting it does. Whatever your intentions behind these edits, the end result is not an improvement. Not to mention a lot of it, such as the additions to the History section, were unsourced claims. - Aoidh (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chakra/Archive_2&oldid=1207698528"