Hi Mouse: I don't believe in Chakras, but I feel them.

As for Reiki, I've never tried it.

Reiki is similar to Therapeutic Touch. Both are said to correct imbalances or blockages in the human energy field, and both work with chakras.  The reliability and validity of Therapeutic Touch were tested with extensive research, and as its credibility was established, it was adopted in the health sciences as an extension of their professional services. It was first taught as an accredited course at York Univerity in 1975 and is now being taught at other universities. By 2000 at least 100 medical centres and health agencies in the USA were including the practice of Thera peutic Touch in their in-hospital and outpatient services.

Learning Therapeutic Touch apparently requires much more training and is similar to a university course as it covers the subject in much more detail. The first level of Reiki only takes about 6 hours and can be taken with an on line course over the internet.

Both methologies, however, are said to help reduce pain, speed the healing of wounds, and hasten the recovery time after an operation, as well as improve general well being. In some cases there have been "miraclulous" healings, however this can happen with any type of healing modality when the person believes strong enough that they are going to get well.. 

Chakras - Do I Believe In Them?

As opposed to my friend K_R above, I do believe they exist. I personally believe that modern western medicines can learn a great deal from the eastern philosophies towards health. Sound and light (vibration) therapy may one day replace the current doctrine of drugs and surgery, i.e. treating the cause and the not the effect.

It's said that the chakras are the fiery wheels or centres of force in the etheric portion of the human body where the energies of the spiritual planes enter into our physical plane, and that physically each of the seven major endocrine glands correspond to one the seven chakra centres. Historically we've seen the religious pictures of the halo aura, or the mythical third Eye of Shiva, or the mystical Heart of Christ. And these are just a couple examples of chakras in history, there are many.

 
The etheric body is said to extend just outside the dense physical body, (the next sub-plane of the physical plane to be discovered), and the chakras are part of that etheric body. The Crown Chakra is said to be just above the top of the head and the Brow Chakra is said to be just in front of the eyes and forehead (aka the 3rd eye). The five spinal chakras, the throat, heart, solar plexus, sacral and basic, are the "etheric counterpart of the spinal column".
 

According to Alice Bailey the "etheric body is a body composed entirely of lines of force, and of points where these lines of force cross each other, and thus form (in crossing) centres of energy. Where many such lines of force cross each other, you have a larger centre of energy, and where great streams of energy meet and cross, as they do in the head and up the spine, you have seven major centres. There are seven such, plus twenty-nine lesser centres and forty-nine smaller centres, known to esotericists."

While the four etheric sub-planes of physical plane are as yet unproven by physical science, the science of light and sub-atomic physics shows promise that this may not always be the case. Theosophy claims that the physical plane is, like so many other physical plane manifestations, composed of seven sub-planes of ever more refined matter. Earth, water and air, claims theosophy, are the three lowest of the physical sub-planes. The first etheric sub-plane is said to be just outside of our current capabilities of perception. Psychics claim to see the etheric aura and it's predicted that our current study of sub-atomic radiation will eventually discover the first etheric sub-plane.

"Scientists today recognize matter as being solid, liquid and gaseous but esoterists know that there are four further states of matter above gas known as the 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st plane of etheric matter. So instead of three planes, there are actually seven planes of matter.

All matter is a precipitation of light and so the field of matter is light precipitated into seven more or less material planes."

Chakras are one way of describing the energy of body and spirit. There are many otehr complimentary but different ways as well. I belive in the concept but my description would likely be different.

Hi Neo,

I am not against the idea of scientifically examining these practices in order to understand how they work from a medical perspective (like what we have done with acupuncture). I would have to agree that I don't like how medicine tends, at times, to lean toward curing symptoms rather than the problem itself. However, as a physicalist, I can't believe that the Chakras have some sort of spiritual component.

Well now you are speaking my language

Well, Bailey forgets that science recognizes another state of matter called plasma. I don't know much about plasma but I do know that it happens at extremely high temperatures (for example, in the sun).

Wow, it seems like Bailey doesn't actually understand that what determine's a substances physical state is a) the strength of the attractive forces between the particles and b) the amount of heat energy associated with each particle (or in other words, the temperature). Light has nothing to do with a substance's physical state.

Actually, in the book I'm reading right now, A Treatise on Cosmic Fire, there are whole sections devoted to the cyclic and alternating magnetism between both atomic matter and the larger pieces or aggregations of the universe such as humans, planets and stars. There's also a great deal of attention regarding heat and how the fires of the mental plane can and do effect and alter matter of the physical plane, (all the planes of nature are said to be intimately tied together and work as homogenous whole if one could but see). I couldn't possibly begin to explain it here because I'm finding difficult to understand as (it's not an easy read), and any feable attempt by me would probably not do the subject any real justice. 

You say that "light has nothing to do with a substance's physical state". Hmmmm, I'm not so sure about this, but I think it would take a some pretty good physics to understand the relationship between light and matter. One the basics of DK/Bailey's work claims that the true understanding of light is the key to the mysteries of understanding physical manifestion and forces in and behind this manifestion.

As we've noted before in other posts, our world, the rocks and plants and animals etc, are but an illusion of temporary form. Everything we see and feel, including our own bodies are made of the same basic elements: proton, neutrons and electrons.. As these elements are temporarily arranged and re-arranged in form it is the life force within that keeps the forms together. Once, says DK/Bailey, the Soul decides to withdrawal this life force then dissolution and disintegration is inevitable. And this life force is said to be, as far as we are concerned, synonymous with light.

And one more thought on the above, if matter is indeed precipitated from light (and from where that light originates God only knows) then it would actually make sense that it would have seven sub-divisions, like the colours of the rainbow.

The chakras were decribed in the anchient Hindu texts called the Upinishads about four thousand years ago. They were also described in anchient writing by the Central american natives. They were also known to the Apache, Hopi, and Zuni in the southwestern United States, as well as the Humas in Hawaii.  If they do not exist then it is a wonder that they were described by so many geographically different peoples.

I certainly do not understand them, however I have no doubt that there is something there that Western medical establishment does not yet understand.

A good book that described chakras and how they can affect our health is  "Therapeutic Touch as Transpersonal Healing' by Dolores Krieger, Ph.D, RN.

Bailey was alive when quantum mechanics was just in its infancy stages. Nobody knew what was going on with electrons and whatnot at that point. Her theosophy may have been valid back then, when the content was fuzzy, but we've made a lot of progress since A Treatice on Cosmic Fire that may contradict some of what she wrote about.

Well, saying that it has "nothing" to do with it may have been an overstatement. Technically, light can turn into heat and if the substance that the light is shining upon is at its melting point or boiling point, some of it will be melted or boiled by that energy.

Anyway, I agree with her when she says that we don't actually see matter, we see the light that bounces off of it. However, we can tell what wavelength the light is, how far it travelled from the last bounce to our eyes, how bright the light is and other things like that using our perception so it's not like we can't know anything through our vision.

I don't remember any quantum theories about souls.

I don't know about that. Light doesn't come in only seven flavours. Light comes in a range of wavelengths that blend together. I really don't think that Bailey's book would be taken seriously by the physicists of today.

Yes, JamesK, I feel similarly about the Book of Revelations.

Add Chakras to the long list of other nonsense I don't "believe in"

Here's a great video which might be of interest (2 parts):

http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=the+enemies+of+reason&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#

(If the link fails, simply Google Videos for "The enemies of Reason"

I tend to call a spade a spade. If I regard Chakras to be nonsense then I will say so.  I respect the person wondering about such things, but not the baseless assertions.  I didn't call the poster an enemy of reason, just the process of the wide-eyed embracing of evidence-free fanciful claims.

So, please, keep in mind that while I am hostile to baseless assertions trotted out as fact - I do separate that from the person.  Kinda like in christianity where they say "Hate the sin, but love the sinner", well, I hate the BS, but love the person.

Which reminds of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAC_cGVnUg&feature=channel_page

.

Thanks, Star Stuff, I'm glad you clarified that.

If you have ringing in your ears, that is possibly Tinnitus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinnitus
 

Yes, Birthstone, believing one's own world view to be absolutely right, and displaying contempt or disdain for those who think differently, triggers hostile feelings and is not conducive to a fruitful dialogue.

Well said Arminious & Birthstone.

We can learn a lot from people who have different beliefs than you if you really listen.

If you think, Star Stuff, that this is no scientic evidence for some of the things you don't belief in, I suggest you read "Prayer is Good Medicine" by Larry Dossey M.D. or start at his website:  http://www.dosseydossey.com/larry/default.htm 

Or read "Therapeutic Touch as Transpersonal Healing" by Dolores Krieger, Ph.D, RN.   In the last 30 years there have been an increasing number of well educated people who are coming to accept some of the things that they previously considered "nonsense". 

Some Christian Fundamentalists, some Athiests, and some of many other beliefs,  are so convinced that their belief is the only right one,  that they are unable to listen to any other evidence, and they are stuck with that belief.  Even some scientists refuse to accept new evidence as fact,  as it would shake their understanding of reality.

If someone is going to get "hurt" by having baseless assertions debunked, well, I can't be responsible for that level of thin-skinnedness.  Please display where I have made personal attacks, as opposed to addressing the ideas/claims/topics.

While my approach might be a little firmer than what you're used to, is it "extremist" to say that unicorns are nonsense?  The level of political correctness that is afraid to call a spade a spade is not helpful in my opinion.

I don't concur.  What statements of mine shut down good communication?

Why is it hard for you to "get around" the style of my posts?  I didn't see a guideline anywhere that dictates that posts have to be of a certain "style".  Yes, sometimes I use a sledgehammer approach, but sometimes, that is the best tool for the job.

When asked whether one believes in something, one is certainly entitled to say yes or no. One can also answer as nice, as forceful or as rude as they please. People will respond based on the way they feel or their perception of words.

When asked if I believe in chakras, I would have to say yes because I am trained in a few fields.  I would also have to clarify what it is I mean when I say chakra along with what I do not mean.

Holding beliefs (fanciful or otherwise) too closely means there is no room.

Do you believe in chakras? Well...Are we talking about real wheels of energy or the conceptualization of something like that? Are we discussing transmission and reception of energy? Are we talking about Hindu's and an esoteric anatomy of the endocrine system? Ayurvedic medicine? Chinese Medicine? New Age?Tantric? Buddhism? Are we talking about yoga? Shiatsu? Tai Chi? Therapuetic touch? Reiki? Qigong? One's answer can depend upon what we are talking about.

Are we speaking as a philosophy? Health maintenance system? Therapuetic intervention? Spiritual path? Martial art? Medical profession? One's answer can depend upon how what we are talking about is packaged.

What we believe may be based on what we mean by "chakra" or what others believe it means or what we think they mean. It may also be based on what we define that as and as a part of or what we believe others are making it a part of.

Some will label it supernatural mumbo-jumbo.

Yet, if we focus on tai chi or yoga those same people may now be in a bind. There are obviously health benefits and there is nothing supernatural about martial arts or maintaining physical health and dexterity and things ...

If I say I can see an aura or an energy field, one can test that. If I say I can heal you, one can wait for results. A good practitioner will not make promises that cannot be kept or make claims that cannot be validated scientifically.

The best I will say, as a responsible practioner, is that I believe in the concepts and
a) I can relax you
b) relaxation has known health benefits (lowed BP, pulse, respiration...)
c) not being relaxed (stress, pain...) has proven effects on health and feelings of well being
d) perception of pain and sense of well being can be altered

Qi (China), prana ( Ayureda and Yoga), reiki (Japan) are concepts and around them are built certain philosophies. They are notions.

Now, when one sets about to scientifically prove a concept, one is in trouble. Concepts do not sit under microscopes well.

What has been found is that at the very least these "concepts" have relaxation benefits, provide a mild hypnotic effect... then people claim that it is placebo effect.

That is bad science.

Hypnosis does not act as a placebo. Studies using hypnosis as anesthesia  have indicated that the pain relief from hypnosis is different than placebo effect. Those studies have indicated that the pain is not perceived rather than experienced with greater tolerance.

There are studies in the UK, the US and Canada about the effectiveness of  using hypnosis on patients with irritable bowel. There are also studies showing the effectiveness of using hypnosis on patients with asthma.

That said, clinical trials are complicated. The gold standard of  randomized and double blind studies is virtually impossible because there must be cooperation and rapport between the patient and the therapist. There are variables in training, experience, the ability to induce, properly worded or expressed suggestions... (in the practitioner) There are mutual variables like rapport, motivation, expectations.... Then there are variables in the patient like client fear, attentiveness, ....

The question can boil down to, if these "concepts" have, even at their best, only hypnotic qualities, is hypnosis nonsense?

Is hypnosis supernatural?

Is hypnosis bad science?

Hypnotheraphy was approved for use in medical and dental practice by the AMA in 1958 after a 2 year study. The British had already released their study in the British Medical Journal in 1955... The American Psychiatric Association 1961. A National Institutes of Health panel issued a statement published by the AMA in 1996 that said there was "strong evidence for the use of hypnosis in alleviating pain associated with cancer." The Mayo Clinc said in 2005, "despite substantial variation in techniques among the numerous reports, patients treated with hypnosis experienced substantial benefits for many different medical conditions. An expanded role for hypnosis and a larger study of techniques appear to be indicated."

Peace,
Stevie G 

I guess there might be different understandings of what "the job" is .... which would of course influence one's choice of  tool. 

Visible light is just the range of wavelengths of light that we as humans can see. Infrared and ultraviolet are ranges of light that humans can't see but that some other animals can. I am not 100% sure about this, because we haven't done optics inmy physics class yet, but I think light may technically be any form of energy that us made of photons. However, that would make X-rays and gamma rays light, so I don't know.

I think musical notes have more to do with the frequency of the energy waves, not the wavelength (which is what determines light colour). I think the seven notes thing may just be how we as people decided that musical notes would work. Sound frequency comes in as infinite a number of frequencies as light comes in wavelengths though.

I think there could be truth to the methods employed, but I think the wheels themselves may not be necessary. When I think about how the universe actually is outside of our human perceptions, I think about things like vibrations and waves as well so I think I know what you mean. If there is a range of wavelenths that makes up spiritual energy, then I'm sure that physicists will be able to find it; we will have to wait and see.