Talk:Chakra/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article needs a rewrite 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Are the five lowest chakras related to the buddhist skandhas? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Evidence-based medicine? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chakras and Western Science 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed OR 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Which sources does someone not think are reliable? (and a couple notes) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Devanagari mistakes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Open Directory Project Links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Passive voice abounds 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 (), the sceptic wikipedia () and Quackwatch () should be included.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonLedouble (talk • contribs) 06:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Relationship 

message: 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)
thread_title:  science/NPOV, etc. again 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chakra in Popular Culture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Angels 

message: 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.Saraswati, MD (1953 - 2001). Kundalini Yoga. Tehri-Garhwal, India: Divine Life Society, foldout chart.  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") 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.
Reidlophile (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced Material 

message: 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.Saraswati, MD (1953 - 2001). Kundalini Yoga. Tehri-Garhwal, India: Divine Life Society, foldout chart.  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") 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.
Reidlophile (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endocrine system 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why is this article in American English? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  qigong 

message: "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.Шатилов К. К. «Лечебные пирамиды. От Атлантиды до наших дней.» С-т Петербург. Изд-во «Вектор» 2008 г. 
 
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.
	
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)
thread_title:  deleted bits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No they don't! This article should be flagged as primitive superstition. 86.179.181.163 (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chakras are Like Soul or dense conscious space within human, but It can not be proved 

message: Perhaps a section explaining that chakras have "no proven relationship with the anatomy or physiology of the human body."?
: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reality check 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Element of Fiction" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sophistry. So what? Totally unsupported nonsense! 86.179.181.163 (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  chakras and neurological pathways 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Further revision 18:05, 17 April 2012, Bringing together the paras. about Steiner. Qexigator (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Rudolf Steiner 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Wrong IPA?" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why only Western books referrred? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vector Versions Available 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chakra logo 

message: 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)
replies: text: I cleared out three new tags, cleanup, worldwide and toolong. None of them are relevant. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Why these article has Issues, i think in these kind of History/Religious Article should be a more strict control by the Wikipedia management

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chakra logo 

message: 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)
replies: text: I cleared out three new tags, cleanup, worldwide and toolong. None of them are relevant. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Why these article has Issues, i think in these kind of History/Religious Article should be a more strict control by the Wikipedia management

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Chakra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120304194144/http://www.archeosofica.org/en/index.php/Theosophical-Excerpts/Gichtel-and-the-Theosophia-Practica.html to http://www.archeosofica.org/en/index.php/Theosophical-Excerpts/Gichtel-and-the-Theosophia-Practica.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: To state that 
:"Concept of Chakra is found in some of the oldest Hindu texts such as Vedas and Upanishads.Balancing the Chakras, Michael Solis, Charles River Editors, p.3The Venus Blueprint: Uncovering the Ancient Science of Sacred Spaces, p.220, Richard Merrick, North Atlantic Books"
better sources than this New Age trivia are needed.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You can look into these sources by reliable publishers: There are more, but for information like this, these two sources are enough. Capitals00 (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upanishads 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120526075243/http://www.edgarcayce.org/ps2/mysticism_interpretating_revelation.html to http://www.edgarcayce.org/ps2/mysticism_interpretating_revelation.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've just changed the final sentence from:
* 
to
* 
bearing in mind the  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:
#  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.
# 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)
thread_title:  Endocrine system 

message: 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)
thread_title:  References to Shakti need explanation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Science of Chakras