Talk:Chakra/Archive 1

message: I moved this from the cleanup request:
*Chakra - the introduction sounds a little bit strange, may be biased in favour of the existence of chakras, and doesn't seem to adequately represent the diversity of the traditions mentioned later in the article. The section on modern New Age notions is also strange with its many slashes, and may even be nonsense (I haven't put up any mental effort to determine this). arj 14:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Did restruc turing, may need some expansion on acupuncture within the article and some points from non-believers. Mgm|(talk) 11:49, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
The article seems OK to me no w, but non-believer contributions would be better. Simply saying that "chakras have not been proven to exist" is not enough. Have there been actual experiments? --Pablo D. Flores 15:53, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, a bit more from the "chakras don't exist" people would be good here. --203.167.184.85 11:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup page text 

message: Chakras do not have, as some authors claim, an internal lotus-like structure; this is a fantasy. Although an exercise involving creation of temporary images of flowers inside chakras and even feeling their delicate aroma in them is a very good exercise.
Chakras also do no t have a specific color inherent to them and they are not supposed to have it. This is also a popular fantasy. And attempts of coloring chakras in accordance with colors of the rainbow are downright and serious self-injuring or injuring of one’s dis c iples.
Skywalker
I agree uterly with both of these points.
For those who have contemplated Light, rather then simply copy for books written by people who have not contemplated Light, it will be obvious that a Chakra, an energy center, in its perfect original condition, would be best described as a White Gold Star. 
Within the White Light, all rays/spectrums are present.
--Aksis 23:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistakes 

message: When one suggests a hypothesis the task then becomes sorting things out on the basis of objective evidence. When one gets to the point that a logically coherent account of some phenomenon can be provided, then people start dignifying the account with the name "theory." The strange thing about scientific theories is that, sort of by definition of what science is, they can never be proven correct, only proven incorrect. The classical example is the assertion, "All swans are white." People had been observing swans and writing descriptions of them for hundreds of years and everybody agreed -- until somebody went off to Australia and the firs t swan s/he saw was black. The p oint is that you only know what you know, and the next turn around a corner may give you a shock.
Finding some authority who claims such-and-such to be true does not necessarily give you knowledge. Even if the authority i s legitimate (not a con man or something like that) s/he may be reliable and responsible and yet not have the crucial piece of information that would change everything. 
One of the problems about logically coherent theories is that they are very convinci ng for that very reason. Usually they've gotten acceptance because they explain a very great deal. Newton's physics is a good example of a very reliable and useful theory that ultimately proved wrong. It turns out to be a special case (where you avoid the very small, the immensely large, and the very, very fast) that is so close to right in most cases that you couldn't measure the difference between what theory predicts and what nature provides.  
People get dedicated to theories. They have attachments t o certain ways of looking at thin gs that appeal to them. Einstein couldn't accept quantum mechanics. He saw the evidence, but he struggled against the conclusions that the evidence pointed to. -- And he was a great thinker.
In writing an encyclopedia ar ticle it is important not to bring one's own preferences to bear. It wouldn't even be appropriate for somebody like Brian Greene (The Fabric of the Cosmos) to say something like, "Dr. Boondoggle's string theory is, finally, the revelation of the secre t of the cosmos."  He can't even s ay something seemingly neutral like, "It's been proven true."  What he could say is that in all the experiments done to try to figure out whether it is making good predictions it has never been shown to be wrong, so peop le regard it as providing extremely reliable predictions. In the real world there are usually people who think another explanation is better, who bring up evidence that seems to indicate the theory is wrong, etc. In an encyclopedia article, the responsibl e thing to do is to lay out the big picture.
The big picture does not weigh in with one's personal feelings, nor does it disrespect the integrity of a field of research. If physicists have been responsibly doing their experiments and reporting on their experiments and getting other people to replicate and verify their experiments, then their conclusions should be trustworthy in two ways: (1) If anybody claimed, e.g., cold fusion, and nobody else could get the same results, probably the people who couldn't confirm the original claims would not be quiet about it. The outside observer would see that there was a big controversy. (2) The experiments are all matters of public record. Ultimately, if you don't believe something like the wave characteristics of l ight you can buy a penlight laser, make two slits in a sheet of aluminum foil, and see for yourself. If you need expensive equipment you study physics in college and get yourself associated with a major physics lab that has the equipment.  
If somebody w ith no credentials (from "credo", "I believe," i.e., demonstrating good reason for us to accept what the person says as well grounded) says something that contradicts "the wisdom of the field," that person might be right. But the responsible student of th e field will ask for that person's evidence and then reproduce the experiments and see where the evidence leads.
I'll leave it at that for the moment. If we can't agree on some ground rules it will be difficult to straighten things out. P0M 18:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and verification 

message: Here is a URL for what appears to be a reliable site. It isn't perfectly docum ented, a failing of lots of writers who haven't been bludgeoned into writing good footnotes by some Western highschool or college teacher. It's just not part of the tradition, I guess.  But it at least gives us the names of several books starting with the earliest to say anything about Chakras. So if y ou're interested you can get the books and dig in. []
P0M 03:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: I'm back, and I've rewo rded some of the changes at the beginning of this section that were made by P0M. While the section was left in a much better state, I think that rhetorical questions do not belong in an encyclopedia; they can be restated more plainly as statements. The language used also made it sound (a bit) as if the scientists were "leaving chakras out of the picture". I hope the new formulation is balanced and satisfies both believers and nonbelievers. --Pablo D. Flores 16:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific basis

message: You still have not adressed the fact that supernature is an accepted source of some scientific fact and i am quateing it as a reference. i think there is a site where it can be read online would that be of any help in this situation. 
Robin
:I'm looking for refernces from real peer reviewed journals. Also do you have any source for tyour claim that "Supernature is an accepted source of some scientific fact"?Geni
:I'm not sure whether Robin's statement above was addressed to me personally, but I'll try to answer it.  You will need to define what you mean by "supernature." That is not a word that I know, and it is not in my 2 volume Webster's Dictionary.P0M 00:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The new Scientist is a magzine for popular consumption. It is not a reliable source. Most journals do not have their loder stuff online. However the medline index in online.Geni 10:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supernature 

message: As pointed out above, whether or not there is a scientific basis for the existence of the chakras is relatively superflous to the meaning of the term which is largely metaphysical in context.  I feel that a lot of the debate about this may have be exacerbated by the placement of mention of a "Scientific Basis" so early in the article.  I have accordingly moved the section toward the end of the article, which I feel improves the character and flow of the article as the chakras are explained fully before any attempt at scientific reconciliation is made.
I also moved the chakra system image into the introduction, from the scientific basis section (where it certainly has no place as many scientific explanations deviate from classical Vedic positioning of the chakras).  It would perhaps be even more at home in the "seven main chakras" section, but the table is already rather cramped on an 800x600 monitor, so I left it in the Introduction. --AndyKali 06:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I got myself a user name finally, and I've made some modifications. I've tried to talk about exactly what the chakras are supposed to be in tantric cosmology, in the introduction, although it may need refining. I felt this Danish author being cited almost as a primary source for the chakras was kind of unsuitable, so I listed a few other sources. I put in a couple of pictures to show how the endocrine system look s similar to the chakra system, but it looks like the other picture of the chakras is going to get deleted, because I don't know the license...sorry!!! I'm not sure yet how to find that. Although I've been editing some of these pages for a while, this is the first time I've actually gone to the effort of getting a user name, and tried to do things with pictures. This article is starting to look a lot more polished, in my opinion, maybe the pictures I put in should be shrunk and put in a more aesthietically pleasing location. --Krsnajinana 23:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the original site. Unfortunately it is a firm that does on-line business, so they will have a de facto copyright on whatever they do. You might e-mail them and ask for permission to use their chart on Wikipedia. It would be too bad if it gets chopped since it complements the other one so nicely. P0M 03:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  Thanks, Krsnajinana; are you responsible for the anonymous edit from 200.90.73.194? (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chakra&diff=next&oldid=28210566) That was a great addition to the artice as it properly represents the origin and major use of the Chakra system over time.  The diagrams too are great, shame about the copyright though. --AndyKali 18:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  I might have a solution to the image problem soon: check out the images on Muladhara, Swadhisthana and Manipura - I've just drawn these up myself and put then on Wikimedia Commons.  Hopefully I should be able to complete the set and replace the copyrighted image. --AndyKali 04:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  Thanks AndyKali!!! I'm glad to see the image back there. I've been anonymously editing this article for a while now, since I encountered it in a sorry state the first time, and I found the topic interesting. I-ve been learning about it myself while I¨ve been doing it. Ive enjoyed this collaboration, between us all weve made a fairly informative article, and now Im a wikipedia convert. I want to edit more articles!!!!!! MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Krsnajinana 14:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved "Scientifc Basis" down in article 

message: The text uses the word "crudifies".  Is that a real word with some arcane significance? Or is it what it looks like? P0M 06:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rare technical term or what? 

message: Hey look up serpent symbolism. The serpents that coil around the staff with wings cross seven times. Perhaps this is a modern medical nod to the chakras. It is undoubtedly an archaic symbol, of which its meaning is no longer known to contemporary practitioners, but hey.01:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The story of the cadeuceus (if I spell that right) is well-known, at least to mythologists and herpetologists.  (The guy who saved the snake from cold by putting in his coat to warm it; the snake showing it is just an animal bites him in fear and kills him; a note on compassion despite the reaction from the patient)  Also, note that the veterinary one and the true medical one are different.  There are one-snake and two-snake versions.  I've heard only one is actually correctly a "cadeuceus."  Interesting idea, though. 82.93.133.130 12:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  look up serpent symbolism 

message: It is claimed to be very important to know the right color tone for a specific area because the wrong hue of color can allegedly do different things to the energetic system. — Who claims this, specifically?  Can anyone provide a source?  I'd be interested to know what the 'different things' are.  Also 'hue of color' sounds tautological to me.
The seven chakras are often associated with the notes of the musical scale (C, D, E, F, G, A, B). This mapping is just one of convenience, for if one actually scales the note frequencies up to their visible range one finds a somewhat different relationship. — This does not appear to make any sense.  How can the frequency of a note become visible?  Also, you cannot scale up the frequency of a note name; note names (C, D, E etc.) represent a range of frequencies, for example A= 110Hz, 220Hz, 440Hz and so on (and this has only been fixed since 1955 - see the section on musical pitch for further information).  If this claim is pointing to an analysis of the relative differences between the pitches of the seven notes in a C major scale as not being concurrent with an analysis of the relative physical distances between the seven chakras, I think this needs to be made more explicit.  Benglow 02:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed in Introduction 

message: Can someone explain to me why the colors of the illustration are incoherent to those of the table shown in the article? — Pladask 21:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color confusion 

message: The seven images in the table (:Image:Chakra01.gif, :Image:Chakra02.gif,  :Image:Chakra03.gif,:Image:Chakra04.gif, :Image:Chakra05.gif, :Image:Chakra06.gif, and :Image:Chakra07.gif) are up for deletion on 2006-09-02 if a source cannot be found and a proper license given (they were originally tagged as , which seems...unlikely). I've contacted th author too, but since this is the only place they are used, I figure the editors here should know as well, in case you can a) determine their state or b) devise replacements before they are gone. Thanks. -- nae'blis 16:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images in table 

message: Is chakhra an alternate way of spelling this word? If so, can we make that page redirect here? I am not doing it because I'm unsure whether the two words carry the same meaning. 
 -- Robin Chen 04:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative spelling? 

message: See Ajna and it has a "some argue". That's WP:WEASEL. DyslexicEditor 10:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ajna 

message: The scientific basis section looks like it came from a "true believer" of this stuff trying to justify their belief on pseudoscientific grounds.  Not that I know anything about this stuff myself, but look at it and tell me it doesn't seem awfully suspicious.  I think we need input from a real skeptic on this subject.
Mbarbier 05:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific basis section is messed up 

message: "...approximated in English by chuhkruh, with 'ch' as in chart and both instances of 'a' as in yoga..." Where's the mentioned two cases of 'a'?
--Bentonia School 16:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Um? 

message: I don't see a reason why there's a link to Naruto in the 'See also' section. Abresas 20:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the "References in Fiction" section is of no clear value.  To be included in Wikipedia, a fact should be both true and noteworthy.  Both tests must be applied to all of the items in this article. For more guidelines on how to clean up unreferenced articles see: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check Buddhipriya 03:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no harm in keeping the section - quite a few articles have such a section. Sfacets 03:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naruto 

message: "It is claimed to be very important to know the right color tone for a specific area because the wrong hue of color can allegedly do different things to the energetic system. Yet different systems differ in the colors they ascribe."
Since different systems differ in the colours they ascribe, why are certain colours being used in the chakra table? 
Sfacets 22:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is filled with a great deal of unreferenced material, which should all be questioned.  There is an effort in the Hinduism project to upgrade the quality of sourcing for Hinduism articles.  This article is a prime example of a topic where most of the current contents have nothing to do with original views in Hinduism, being based instead on Western metaphysical and "New Age" thinking.  First step with something like this is to identify what statements are unsourced, and say so in the article using  or similar tags.  If the statement is unsourced and you don't agree with it, and to you it seems ludicrous on the surface, I would say it is fair game to delete it or move it to the talk page for discussion.  It is unwise to cut too many things at once, because someone may then mass revert all of your changes, throwing out good with bad in a heap.  Prune one or two bits of unsourced nonsense per week and in a month or so the article will be looking better. Buddhipriya 03:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that cleanly labeling the New Age materials and separating them out from the Indic source materials would be a good idea.  Why don't you take a stab at sorting out sections?  If there were a section titled something like "Chakras in Sanskrit Source Texts" or something like that I may be able to provide some references.  I do not follow the New Age materials so know very little of those claims.  I also am not a follower of any of the various current groups so I have no particular sectarian view to push, as far as I know. The chakra article is currently in the category of "high importance" Hinduism articles so it deserves a cleanup from that point of view. Buddhipriya 03:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colours 

message: Regarding the line in the article It is the shakta theory of 7 main chakras that many people in the West adhere to, largely thanks to a translation of two Indian texts, the Sat-Cakra-Nirupana, and the Padaka-Pancaka, by Sir John Woodroffe, alias Arthur Avalon, in a book entitled The Serpent Power. I have found a references to the claim stated, it is however the amazon page of the book, with contents info. http://www.amazon.com/Serpent-Power-Arthur-Avalon/dp/0486230589/ref=si3_rdr_err_product/104-0439498-3810353
Is this references permitted or will it be removed on NPOV or commercial website issues? Teardrop onthefire 12:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't link to amazon.  It would be much better to simply use the book as a reference.TheRingess (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  references 

message: Since this is a separate topic, I will begin a thread here for the issue of bringing the article into the structure outlined by Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout, specifically the use of Notes and References sections to enforce compliance with WP:CITE and WP:RS.  Can objections to the use of the standard sections be made more specific? Buddhipriya 20:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has commented on this suggestion.  Is there any objection to the use of the standard layout for Notes and References? Buddhipriya 07:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing no objection I have added the standard section for References and have moved the books that are cited in footnotes to the References list. See: Wikipedia:Guide to layout and compliance with WP:CITE. Buddhipriya 00:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of WP:LAYOUT guidelines 

message: The following book is now being used in the footnotes.  I have not seen it so cannot comment on it's value from personal inspection:
*
The issue is that if we are going to raise the bar on source quality, how can we determine if a work is a WP:RS or not, as opposed to WP:FRINGE material?  Are there any particular marks of reliability that we can look for?  This book, for example, is not published by an academic publishing firm (as far as I know), it is not cited in the Bibliography of any of the academic works I have checked, and the author names do not appear in the index to any of the standard sources I have checked.  Perhaps it is a wonderful book, but how do we know this is not fringe material? The book description at Amazon.com for this item reads: "Included in this book are new spinal chi kung warmups to quickly energize any meditation. The reader will also learn how to combine sexual passion with a loving heart inside the body to relieve sexual-emotional frustration and speed up spiritual growth."  It sounds dubious to me.  I think it should be ruled out as a WP:RS, and references to it should be deleted.  What do other editors think? Buddhipriya 06:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding a book being used as a reference 

message: The large table in the article giving various associations is completely unsourced, and I think it should be deleted. Buddhipriya 18:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree, the table is one of the best parts of this article because it illustrate graphically everything. --Dendrotech 02:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table is completely unsourced 

message: only one webiste has this information
http://www.xeeatwelve.com/articles/omni3.htm
it says that it is located btw the heart and the throat centre.
manchurian candidate 05:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That website hurt my eyes. I couldn't be persuaded to consider it a credible source to cite, unless we wanted to illustrate something about what "original research" looks like outside of Wikipedia ("Hey, I invented/discovered/named a brand new chakra back in the 80s and I've been trying to get the idea to catch on with other people for the last 20 years. By the way, aliens are tricking us into using flouride."). Please let's not include this in the article. - Tenmiles 18:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a new charka? pinto chakra