I came upon an article once on the internet about there being scientific evidence supporting the existance of chakra’s. At the time i wasnt really interesed and didn’t read it, but now i am rather curious as to what they had to say.
I have heard some people say that there is no way of prooving them, and since i have no real idea about chakra’s at all, I put it to you:
Are chakra’s scientifically proven?
thanks phil
Its like “Is love sciencifically proven?”.It can be explained by cardiologist and biochemist but it still be only part of the picture.Very little part.
You know that love is and that it exists because you feel it.It wouldnt work if you didnt believe it.
Here is similar- science isnt the best tool to know about chekras.Sure it can give you supportive ideas,even “proven” it(like chemicals being released at given moment) but what is really required in proving their existance is to call your emotions and feelings and let judging mind sleep.MInd wont really let you see many things cuz unfortunately it what weve been told.And you realize that living in western culture can really make one not able to say whats real whats not anymore.Its a labirytnh you need to pass in order to know some things.
good luck
chakra´s? are you talking about the energy spots thingie?
I can’t see how scientists have proven their existance… surely we don’t need science to verify the existence of something like that anyway
I’m sure the existence of chakras can be shown scientifically once the whole mindset of scientists evolves above the rational level so they can see there’s more than just atoms. But why do we need science to prove it? The only thing science can do is reduce phenomena to flat surfaces of objectively measured values depicted on an even flatter computer screen 
. Chakras would become so pale when compared to their actual contents. It’s like the reduction of the phenomenal mind to a bunch of electron interactions: the whole experience itself gets lost… and imo that’s the big mistake of science. Things like chakras or consciousness are best to be interpreted from a subjective point of view, not reduced to an objectivized measurement, so that it’s inner value would not get lost.
im sure chakras exist but the healing element of it depends on your relationshp with your 4 bodies: Ehteric, Astral, Mental & Intuitive. according to Yogic Literature…
but this is not science. are you spiritual or scientific?
Why should it be science or spirituality? Real science isn’t contradictory to real spirituality, so why not believe in the value of both truths? 
sure you can look at both points of view, but i have said this so many times.
you cannot find god through science metaphorically speaking… .
Science is not the opposite of spirituality, it is the complement.
I find Jack’s explanation to be very good.
-stranger
Word. For me, Science is the discovery of God’s methods. Science provides the How while Spirituality provides the Why.
That’s a nice way to put it And together it points at the root problem of current science: it claims to provide BOTH the How and the Why by applying a deadly flattening reductionism, so in the end there’s nothing left for spirituality (according to science).
Actually, it seems to completely disregard the Why entirely! This is HOW it works. Why does it work that way? Oh, it just does, that question is irrelevant. Thus, since it’s irrelevant, it’s wrong?
Science and it’s dedicated “zealots” (ironic, isn’t it?) have become pompous beyond their own comprehension. Quantum Physics have broken every theory they had originally about an objective world that “just works” and showed us a glimpse of a world that technically doesn’t even exist without us in the first place. Science shall deal it’s own destruction through it’s blind skepticism, which is worse than the blind Faith they disparage.
I think I wasn’t clear enough in my previous post, but this is actually what I meant by science’s flattening reductionism: science does not completely disregard the question of Why, but it treats it in the same manner as the How, thus making any genuine considerations about the Why irrelevant as you say. The Why can only be interpreted, not explained, based upon personal experience. By reducing this subjective interpretation in terms of How, the whole experience of consciousness itself becomes so flattened out that the world looses its colors and depth. Instead of an immensely colored inner depth, you get pale and monochrome surfaces, the favorite objects of classical science. That’s why I think it would not be a good idea to try to find a scientific explanation of chakras in this time period. Perhaps later, when science has to deal with its own failures.
But how sad all of this may seem, genuine science isn’t a bad thing, because genuine science should stay in its own domain: the one of outer objects, and it should certainly not invade the subjective domains thereby reducing these to outer phenomena. One day science will come to understand this, that you cannot fully reduce subjective interpretations to objective phenomena. I can only hope the scientific view (which regulates most people in the Western world, though they may not realize this) hasn’t destroyed the whole Earth and its inhabitants by then…
I agree 1000000%
Mankind is simply in another phase. We tried being ultimately Religious, only led to strong beliefs and strong wars. We tried soley technology (our current state) and it only produced better ways to kill each other, almost entirely removing the Love from our Society that a TRUE belief in God supplies.
Our next step and only logical next step is a combination of these two. If we do not succeed in time, we will be forcefully cleansed and those who didn’t make it back in time will repeat Physical existance over and over until they finally make it home. Either way, ‘all roads lead to Rome.’
Not to seem so clueless but whats a Chakra? 
Ego Tripping: You know about Ken Wilber’s work? His integral approach is a fantastic but realistic view upon all these things (consciousness - science - religion - evolution - God - current vs historic situation) and he combines it in one big integral model with a simplicity that almost overwhelms its beauty: man is always on the road, and with each step he’s coming closer to the realization that he already Is. With each new step, he not only needs to climb to a higher level, but also needs to develop his newly gained insights in the four domains which make up his world: the subjective/objective and internal/external domains (gives four combinations). Only when he can combine this horizontal translation in a healthy with the increasing vertical depth he gains with every new step, only then he can safely come to realize the Isness of his being. It’s like the unfolding of a rose bearing four petals in each new layer.
However, during this journey, an immense amount of problems can arise, both during horizontal translation and during vertical transformation, and this on all levels and in every domain. But as you say, evolution will always come back on the right track, no matter the cost… The aggressive scientific vision however is keeping humanity on a side-track for more than 200 years now…
If you want to read a summary of Wilber’s ideas, check this topic.
Lone wolf: a chakra is an essential element of the human etheric body (an energy body which yogis believe is the second of seven bodies which each one of us has; the physical body is only the first one and also the grossest one; the higher the body, the more ethereal it is; science doesn’t accept this view, as you probably guessed ). Chakras are vortices in that etheric body who distribute the energy (chi) throughout the body, thereby also giving life to the physical body. Cancel out the chakras and you’ll die. Here’s an excellent link: rickrichards.com/chakras/Chakras1a.html
Mystic: I just printed it and I’ll read it today/tonight, sounds right up my alley.
Ok. The printing must have taken quite some time I guess 
Hope you like it!
I know that scientists have been able to prove that those monks (tibetan???) really are able to channel energy to specific parts of their body, is that sort of the same thing?