Are Chakras real?
The answer to the question “are chakras real?” is a difficult question to answer.
For here we must come to understand what is meant when we say “real”. For years,
scholars, theorists and doctors have been trying to anatomically locate and
scientifically prove the existence of the chakras. SS Major Basu is recognized
as the first to bring together the symbolic mapping of the Tantric body with
Western anatomy based understandings of the body in 1888 (Singleton, 50). Singleton
describes him as the “pioneer” of a field in which attempts to locate the
chakras in an empirical and rational way were made, the question here
being, “do they exist? Or do they only exist in the imagination of the
Tantrists?” (50). The implications of this question are that in order for us
to believe that chakras exist, they must be proven by scientific methods and
observation rather than “imagination”which is inherently non-rational
(Singleton, 51). This view gives authoritative primacy to rational, scientific
based ways of understanding the body and discredits traditional, and ritual
based notions. So when we ask the question, “are chakras real” we must first
examine the framework from which we are posing the question.
Scientifically speaking, there is no evidence that Tantrists dissected
corpses to find empiracle evidence of the chakras (Singlton, 51). In 1855,
Dayananda Saraswati (founder of the Arya Samaj, a Hindu reform movement),
dissected a corpse he found from a river to acertain the anatomical existence of
the chakras. When he failed to locate them he concluded that the Tantric understanding of the body as well as
several other important yoga texts and philosophies were absolutely false
(Singleton, 51).
It is important to recognize that from a Tantric perspective, the chakras
“are simply not observable physical phenomena, but inscribed ritual processes” (Singleton, 51).
In tantric ritual, imagination is a kind of action, and the “forms that the body takes in
ritual are a kind of knowing” (Flood, 6). Tradition and the cosmos are all
contextualized within the body and the body itself represents these traditions
and the cosmos from a Tantric stance (Flood, 5). Here, the view of the body is a
dialogical interaction between tradition, representation, symbolism, deities,
and other cosmological phenomenon (as we have seen in our outline of each chakra
and its associated symbol). The chakras are not physically observable, they are
not available for medical testing or empirical analysis, but from a Tantric
perspective they are not supposed to be (Singleton, 52). This is not to say
that the chakras are not very real in a certain context, it is merely to point out that traditional and modern
understandings of the body are different, contain their own truths and are not
necessarily meant to coincide (Singleton, 52). These differences do not make the
realities any less real.
For here we must come to understand what is meant when we say “real”. For years,
scholars, theorists and doctors have been trying to anatomically locate and
scientifically prove the existence of the chakras. SS Major Basu is recognized
as the first to bring together the symbolic mapping of the Tantric body with
Western anatomy based understandings of the body in 1888 (Singleton, 50). Singleton
describes him as the “pioneer” of a field in which attempts to locate the
chakras in an empirical and rational way were made, the question here
being, “do they exist? Or do they only exist in the imagination of the
Tantrists?” (50). The implications of this question are that in order for us
to believe that chakras exist, they must be proven by scientific methods and
observation rather than “imagination”which is inherently non-rational
(Singleton, 51). This view gives authoritative primacy to rational, scientific
based ways of understanding the body and discredits traditional, and ritual
based notions. So when we ask the question, “are chakras real” we must first
examine the framework from which we are posing the question.
Scientifically speaking, there is no evidence that Tantrists dissected
corpses to find empiracle evidence of the chakras (Singlton, 51). In 1855,
Dayananda Saraswati (founder of the Arya Samaj, a Hindu reform movement),
dissected a corpse he found from a river to acertain the anatomical existence of
the chakras. When he failed to locate them he concluded that the Tantric understanding of the body as well as
several other important yoga texts and philosophies were absolutely false
(Singleton, 51).
It is important to recognize that from a Tantric perspective, the chakras
“are simply not observable physical phenomena, but inscribed ritual processes” (Singleton, 51).
In tantric ritual, imagination is a kind of action, and the “forms that the body takes in
ritual are a kind of knowing” (Flood, 6). Tradition and the cosmos are all
contextualized within the body and the body itself represents these traditions
and the cosmos from a Tantric stance (Flood, 5). Here, the view of the body is a
dialogical interaction between tradition, representation, symbolism, deities,
and other cosmological phenomenon (as we have seen in our outline of each chakra
and its associated symbol). The chakras are not physically observable, they are
not available for medical testing or empirical analysis, but from a Tantric
perspective they are not supposed to be (Singleton, 52). This is not to say
that the chakras are not very real in a certain context, it is merely to point out that traditional and modern
understandings of the body are different, contain their own truths and are not
necessarily meant to coincide (Singleton, 52). These differences do not make the
realities any less real.
“Tantra cannot be understood because tantra is not an
intellectual proposition: it is an experience. Unless you are receptive,
ready, vulnerable to the experience, it
is not going to come to you”- Bhagavan Shree Rajneesh (Flood, 3)
If we take a step back from understanding chakras from a purely anatomical perspective, many interpretive doors open up to us.Perhaps from a purely physical standpoint chakras are “real” because we can feel certain states or “modifications of bliss and awareness” at each body centre (Wilber, 127). These states seem wholly appropriate to their assigned focal points, which only further justifies this perspective. For example, it seems perfectly self-evident that we would experience openness and love in our heart area, and intellect and insight in the head/eye region (Wilber, 127). It is important to remember that chakras are located at specific parts of our bodies, or associated with certain organs, but they are not identical to these parts (Wilber, 128). Hence the conception of the subtle body wherein these wheels lie; where the conventional separation between organism and environment no longer exist and thus pinpointing in which of these a chakra is located becomes pointless (Wilber, 128). Wilber points out that the most important point regarding chakras is not their localization but the “modes of consciousness that take these regions as an appropriate outlet” (128). A wise and enlightened sage will still love with her heart and procreate with her genitals. The insights an individual may have on her transition from a physical form to cosmic form may be referenced or have a physical correlation to a particular centre of the body (Wilber, 128). Thus, the reality of a chakra's existence becomes linked to its symbolic identification within the body and also a state of consciousness. To maintain that chakras are purely metaphorical and have zero physical correlation perhaps comes from a hesitation of putting spirit and matter in the same category or realm (Wilber, 128). This hesitation is unnecessary however, because spirit and matter have never been separated, they are intrinsically tied. The point is this: “The fact that chakras are symbolic does not prevent their association with particular regions of the body, and the fact that they may be more appropriately experienced in certain regions of the body does not rob them of their transcendent symbolism” (Wilber, 129).
"The symbols of the chakra, then, afford us a standpoint that extends beyond the conscious. They are intuitions about the psyche as a whole, about its various conditions and possibilities. They symbolize the psyche from a cosmic standpoint. It is as if a superconsciousness, an all embracing divine concsciousness, surveyed the psyche from above"- Carl Jung (67)
Chakras and Consciousness
If we are to agree that each chakra represents an appropriate centre of the body and a particular stage in spiritual growth or consciousness we must explore the idea of stages of consciousness further. Carl Jung argues that we can distinguish three different psychological levels within us; the first corresponds to the muladhara-svadhisthana, the second manipura-anahata, and lastly visuddha-ajna (Jung, 85). The psychology of the lower levels is similar to that of primitives- unconscious and instinctive (Jung, 85). Life on this plane is merely an occurrence without ego with much energy remaining unmanifested (Jung, 85).
In the second level the occurrence is
both above and below the diaphragm. Below, in manipura,
man is emotional and at the wills of his passions, above in anhata
the notion of the self and rationality begins (Jung, 85). We see this in our
everyday lives when we point to our chests in reference to our“selves”. When
emotions become involved, our consciousness, or psychology slips down to manipura, though most of us have
ourselves convinced that this is not the case- that we are “the masters in our
own home”- that we abide in the ajna
centre (Jung, 85). We believe this because we believe that we
have our thoughts, forgetting that more often than not our thoughts have us
(Jung, 85-86). When we are free of our thoughts and can understand the duality
between “I” and “mind”, between “psyche” and “brain” we are entering the vissudha-ajna level (Jung, 86). Jung
asserts that we can trace the Kundalini process in the history of
consciousness of humankind at large. First, the “belly-consciousness” of the
primitive existed (Jung, 86). Here, all that went noticed centered on sex and
what weighed on the stomach (Jung, 86). Next, the “Homeric” person developed
with a sense of the feeling body and emotions (Jung, 86). Only now, Jung argues,
the modern Western person has become conscious of the mind, the brain, the
psyche (Jung, 86). We see this in thinkers such as Descartes who emphasized over
and over his self-awareness of his own thoughts. The irony that such thinkers
were titled “enlightenment thinkers”should not be lost here and relates back to
Jung’s point that often times man can play God in believing he resides in theajna centre, or even the sahasrara,
believing he has his thoughts when really he is still a prisoner to them and exists on a lower level of consciousness.
In the second level the occurrence is
both above and below the diaphragm. Below, in manipura,
man is emotional and at the wills of his passions, above in anhata
the notion of the self and rationality begins (Jung, 85). We see this in our
everyday lives when we point to our chests in reference to our“selves”. When
emotions become involved, our consciousness, or psychology slips down to manipura, though most of us have
ourselves convinced that this is not the case- that we are “the masters in our
own home”- that we abide in the ajna
centre (Jung, 85). We believe this because we believe that we
have our thoughts, forgetting that more often than not our thoughts have us
(Jung, 85-86). When we are free of our thoughts and can understand the duality
between “I” and “mind”, between “psyche” and “brain” we are entering the vissudha-ajna level (Jung, 86). Jung
asserts that we can trace the Kundalini process in the history of
consciousness of humankind at large. First, the “belly-consciousness” of the
primitive existed (Jung, 86). Here, all that went noticed centered on sex and
what weighed on the stomach (Jung, 86). Next, the “Homeric” person developed
with a sense of the feeling body and emotions (Jung, 86). Only now, Jung argues,
the modern Western person has become conscious of the mind, the brain, the
psyche (Jung, 86). We see this in thinkers such as Descartes who emphasized over
and over his self-awareness of his own thoughts. The irony that such thinkers
were titled “enlightenment thinkers”should not be lost here and relates back to
Jung’s point that often times man can play God in believing he resides in theajna centre, or even the sahasrara,
believing he has his thoughts when really he is still a prisoner to them and exists on a lower level of consciousness.
Copyright Annisha Lashand 2012