|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|
I have removed a line by a cultist belonging to the Nirmala Devi Cult, who claims she is the first person in the World to open this Chakra in 1970. Since Hindus have known about Chakras for 1000s years, this seems a bit unbelievable. Shiva bakta 12:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Shiva bakta
I have restored and modified the wording to make it NPOV Sfacets 00:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Still has a typo, and I don't see that this information belongs here, in that format, at all. Not any more than, say, J.R.R. Tolkien should have a one-line section reading "Hard-line Evangelical Christians claim that Tolkien was not a Christian, citing his Catholicism as evidence." It's simply irrelevant, and so I shall remove it. If such information belongs anywhere, it's in Sahaja Yoga. Or shall we mention every yogi, crackpot or otherwise, who claims to have opened this chakra, along with the date of their claim? What of Adi Da, the First, Last and Only Seventh-Stage Realizer and Avataric Incarnation of whateverthehell? --Geoff Capp 12:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Feel free to change the format... and add any other claims... but this is relevant to the article. Perhaps rename to "claimed opening" or other.
Sfacets 00:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
How is this claim relevent to the article? What if I went to Chrisianity website and started adding claims by White crackpots who claim that attacking Black people is sanctioned by Christ? I agree with Geoffcapp- there are a million hippies making all sorts of claims out there. What evidence do we have for them? Any way, to keep with your Western concepts of "neutrality", I have moved it to the bottom of the page, and added more warnings. Sfacets, I see you are a member of the Nirmala Devi cult(as on your page, you claim to have built her Wiki). Has this biased your own NPOV? Shiva bakta 12:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Shiva_bakta
I question your own POV - describing a religious movement as a "cult" is quite a strong indication of this. Built her wiki? Contributed to her article perhaps. As I also mention on my userpage, the fact that I believe in spirituality has no bearing on my edits - and as I menionned, as you have any other claims of a movement/spiritual leader opening th center, feel free to add it.
Sfacets 07:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't really like how the line relating Sahasrara to the pituitary gland was changed relating it to the pineal gland, just stating 'this is a misconception'. According to who? One or two authors. There are other people who feel it relate to the pineal gland. Both points of view should be given equal say. In fact, there is nothing in ancient Indian philosophy that says the chakras are related to any of the glands, but the similarites are too similar to ignore. I personally see a greater similarity between the function of Sahasrara and the pituitary gland. But like I said before, it is only a matter of personal opinion. I don't think we can find a definitive source to give us the right answer
- The right answers come from using reliable sources. Check your bihar school of yoga books and your Shivananda books (shivananda was a doctor and an expert of kundalini tantra) and you will see what associations have been made between the physical and subtle bodies. Claims from websites have no validity here (with few exceptions), nor do our own conclusions. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- According to some, if not all, the sources quoted, Sahasrara *is* a chakra. What are you basing the fact that it's not on? Dhtwiki (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- The sources quoted are very poor quality at the moment. Think about the fact that it is described in the shatchakranirupana. Shat means six not seven. The traditional descriptions don't call it a chakra. "Situated at the crown of the head is sahasrara. It is not really a chakra but the abode of highest consciousness." Asana, Pranayama, Mudra, Bandha by Swami Satyananda p. 520. the idea that it is a chakra is more of a post theosophy description, but it is commonplace enough to remain in the article with the proper disclaimer. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)