Which of the two show near exact location of chakras?

[manish_gof]

[attachment=0:3s3q4gkm]chart.gif[/attachment:3s3q4gkm][attachment=1:3s3q4gkm]astral18.gif[/attachment:3s3q4gkm]

Which of these are more accurate?

[CFTraveler]

I think that in the second one, what is in the navel is not a chakra, it is a tantien, which is why it's so much larger than the chakras. So in essence, both are accurate depictions of where the chakras should be.

[ButterflyWoman]

I'm going to be the dissenter here and say that I don't actually think chakras are literal. It's an extremely useful metaphor, and there are, it turns out, major nerve centres in the locations that chakras are meant to be in (maybe not the throat... I'd have to do medical research and I'm too lazy ). But I don't think precision is really all that significant when it comes to things like chakras. In my personal experience, just a general sensation and/or awareness seems to work well enough, without worrying about precision.

Maybe not helpful, I don't know. I just wanted to stir the pot.

[Tutor]

I'm going to be the dissenter here and say that I don't actually think chakras are literal. It's an extremely useful metaphor, and there are, it turns out, major nerve centres in the locations that chakras are meant to be in (maybe not the throat... I'd have to do medical research and I'm too lazy ). But I don't think precision is really all that significant when it comes to things like chakras. In my personal experience, just a general sensation and/or awareness seems to work well enough, without worrying about precision.

Maybe not helpful, I don't know. I just wanted to stir the pot.

this is a very important point...'metaphor'.

with metaphor the intangible becomes tangible. however, the inward journey is often lost in the focus seeking sight of the tangible metaphor.

therefore, as you have said, precision would lose itself, it having to do with hard tangibles and unable to do with the meta-phoric tangibles.

understanding the difference is understanding the shift from what is the field/s of 'gross' and what is the field/s of 'subtle', and the two working together as whole/one ness - union.

a documented report founded on hard facts & a poem 'rambling on' at great length about lovers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3HemKGDavw

"Ain't nothing I can do, no"

just be

T

[Palehorse Redivivus]

In my experience, the etheric body is a bit more objective than the astral, and a bit less so than the physical, though the etheric bodies of individuals are not all designed exactly the same (so I would recommend using diagrams and traditions like this for reference, but using that as a jumping-off point to explore your own). Disagreements between traditions and people about the number, placement and specific functions of chakras may be down to people making the assumption that their individual findings could be generalized a little too dogmatically, though in my experience with my own system and others, the usual portrayals are a pretty good guideline.

I've had enough chakra-related problems that responded when, and only when, they were figured out and approached with precision as a "mechanical" issue, but did not respond to things like belief, affirmation, intent and so forth. In some cases I remember the day when a negative construct was attached to one of my chakras, many years before I knew what chakras were, and then in the early stages of my development I tried to use positive thinking to heal myself to no avail. Fixing the issues required figuring out 1. something specifically wanted to impede the function of this chakra, 2. this is what its function is ideally supposed to be, 3. this is the effect the construct is having, and 4. I needed someone with more precise sensing ability than I had at the time, to remove and destroy a lot of them and heal the chakra in order to restore function, because my belief, intent and awareness actions without being able to sense the objective side of it, was not effective.

If chakras were wholly or even mostly metaphoric or subjective, it would've made my life a lot easier a lot sooner, lol. As it stands though I can't really conclude anything *other* than that chakras behave a lot like organs, with specific functions, independently of our beliefs about them. They respond to beliefs to a degree, but then, so do our physical bodies.

[CFTraveler]

I want to add something to what PH said, and this is of my own experience- I had always thought that the chakras were symbolic, that they didn't really exist as portrayed (energy vortexes, etc.), that were assigned their functions according to what they were supposed to address (using the example of the throat chakra, it would have to do with thought expressed as 'word', vibration, the meeting place of ideas and will (you have to think of what you want to say, and then want to say it, and then say it, for example) and so on and so forth.
But one day my husband and I were meditating in tandem in the dark (something we never ever do, IDK how that happened), in front of each other. And after a while, I opened my eyes, and I was shocked and amazed to see glowy orbs of light where the chakras are supposed to be, all the way down the front of his body (we were sitting facing each other with legs crossed). The sight lasted a nanosecond and it was gone- but I had seen chakras, for the first and only time, we haven't tried that again. But now I know that chakras are not just symbols, and I'm not the only person that has seen them.

[Tutor]

"this is a very important point...'metaphor'.

with metaphor the intangible becomes tangible. however, the inward journey is often lost in the focus seeking sight of the tangible metaphor.

therefore, as you have said, precision would lose itself, it having to do with hard tangibles and unable to do with the meta-phoric tangibles.

understanding the difference is understanding the shift from what is the field/s of 'gross' and what is the field/s of 'subtle', and the two working together as whole/one ness - union.

a documented report founded on hard facts & a poem 'rambling on' at great length about lovers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3HemKGDavw

"Ain't nothing I can do, no"

just be"


folks,

did ya really read this? did we hear it and not listen to it? only hearing your thoughts on it?

the video is offered because in it are intangibles clearly seen very tangibly. the words and the visuals paired create an altogether intangible sight emergent of feelings alone. not the feelings which we as foreigners to are reactant to, but those open and bare in the field of vulnerability.

so...you felt the shift, sighted the unseeable. where is the understanding? listening is like inner sight. listening is not attention, for in attention one is focusing thoughts.

when attention ceases then the ear listens and the eye sights, the body writhes euphorically respondent to the slightest nuance of a breath upon it.

ok, when attention ceases, what word with precision would say?

thus, we say that "it is like this or that" which lies in the objective tangible field. the subjective metaphor upholds what without attention was listened to or sighted upon, felt to be without objective reference.

can i put unseen energy in a bucket? yet, an empty bucket is never not full, and within that emptiness dwells that which my body with, would carry on iron to feed the myriad of furnaces energizing my members.

the material reference of body, or the home, is gathered around unseen energy. this energy cannot be seen outright, it is seen however by those who would feel it so to be.

engineered blueprints may guide the builder to erect a house, however, it will be the occupants of said house finished that will make it as, and affectionately call it home.

if i had the link, i'd direct this now to Neil's offering today about "home".

i suppose that if someone threw a running chainsaw into a group, that at times there are some who'd jump right in full throttle to fight it, never understanding that the on/off switch is from a lack of reactionary measures thus respondently seen. :::sorry for that human moment:::

i listen to these threads and i sight that which dwells behind them...that being humans like myself, vulnerably trying to understand.

diagrams have lost many a folk in there seeking. you have to approach such from multiple directions.

chakras are symbolic, and approachable from that angle. chakras may be seen outright, yet few have the sublety of sight to witness, and by that most will not see such.

what is a blessing? when has one been blessed to have such a sight or to listen to such as does not speak yet with a voice informs.

both views are correct angles. neither is an error in thinking. which one of us charted the original diagram revealing chakra placement? not i

someone along the way had sight, had seen the unseeable, charted it and passed it on.

not so folks could go digging for the burried treasure where X's mark the spots, but because this original sight understood the relative insignificance of 'self', that others would in their time have same sight of this relative unseen, and in having charted they looking at said chart would concur, saying "I too have seen the unseeable, and the name is chakra".

360 degrees in a circle, that's a 'load' of angles right there.

for a body to be upheld in it's gross material form, there are innumerable subtle centers energetically at play, they in given formation and of unquestionable marching orders, unseen and upholding.

i am just now reading a rather heady book, just did an hour ago look over a page with a full diagram created to show the dialogue's reveal within the particular chapter. yet, I listen to the authored note under the diagram, where the author fully states:

"Please note that the above example, as with all physical comparisons, should not be taken entirely at face value. The student should be ever watchful of literal interpretations. Physical comparisons such as the one given above can be misleading. The phenomenon of which we are speaking occurs on the metaphysical or potential level through phases. par: Although correct from an "objective" point of view (perhaps "rational" is a better word, true objectivity being humanly impossible) the above example is not indicative of the entire process. Such processes must be viewed from various angles to be fully comprehended. So while we find that the above comparisons hold true on their intended physical and metaphysical levels, it is of utmost importance to consider this phasic process also from a personal perspective. In other words, the process of which we are speaking is both "physical" as in the revealment of, and metaphysical as it relates to the potential and thought realms, however it must never be forgotten that when the student/teacher speaks of this process he/she is also referring to the heart of man." end quote

in the heart of man dwells the understanding. understanding would see the unseeable, needing not the knowing which unseen does uphold, to see it.

who knoweth their own heart? not I.

yet with understanding any human seeing the answer finds only that forgiveness for all else in it, which by one's own misgiven words and deeds hath clearly seen to say "I know not what I do".

no fenses,

T

after thought: I withhold names of author and book with no disrespect to either.