Talk:Chakra

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.

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)

NPOV

This article treats Chakras as a scientific fact. Compare this to the april 2006 edition. "In Hinduism and 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.