LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
parent
  • double2
    +2

    Well, mythology isn't science, by definition. But chakras are actual significant glands within the human body, which regulate various hormones e.g. the thyroid - this is what I am calling science btw: the existence of physical things which have traditionally been nominated as the locations of chakras.

    That all said, I think I'm drawing on a personal understanding of all of this and probably not what was being referred to beforehand. I'm reading some stuff off of the back of a quick google and it seems a lot of horoscope type pseudo-science revolves around the ideas of chakras, which annoys me as much as the next skeptic. I guess what I was reacting to is the categorisation of the concept of chakras along with magic crystals, the latter of which I find to be a laughable concept.

    • spaceghoti
      +1

      Please clarify. How do the tradition of chakras correspond to actual glands in the human body? This is the first I've heard of this claim and I'm looking for actual, peer-reviewed research demonstrating which chakras correspond to which glands as opposed to "it sounds right to me so this is what I think."

    • hallucigenia
      +4

      To me, chakras are a laughable concept, and about as silly as crystals, ghosts, or Bigfoot. Chakras, as they are traditionally understood, aren't glands, but some kind of energy centers in the body.

      What I think you're talking about is this.

      Chakras and their importance are posited to reside in the psyche. However, there are those who believe that chakras have a physical manifestation as well.

      So, as usually happens, some people are trying to reconcile religion with science. Predictably,

      These associations remain speculative, however, and have yet to be empirically validated.

    • double2
      +1
      @hallucigenia -

      Fair does. Considering the audacity of my original comment ("read up on the science before making judgement" - whatever I wrote which I deleted in embarrassment) I think I've fallen victim to thinking I knew more about the subject than I do! I think I'm on poor form today...my apologies D:

    • double2 (edited 3 years ago)
      +1
      @spaceghoti -

      I don't know what peer reviewed research you'd need for saying "these glands are what are considered the chakras". I don't really know what you're asking people to prove here... I think wires have been crossed somewhere.

      This page is the kind of description I was working off. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the function of these glands was originally studied by civilisations that included the idea of chakras within their cultural spirituality, thus driving their medical investigation. This was why I was of the understanding that the idea of chakras was in its basic form a scientifically reasonable idea. However reading up on this, it appears that that idea is speculative and could be a ret-con of sorts! :) Also, I enjoyed reading this thread on my searches. I have a feeling that the conversation of chakras is a far more charged/exploited concept abroad than in the uk where it's always seemed quite innocuous to me.

    • spaceghoti
      +2
      @double2 -

      So basically, you're talking about the sort of thing that /u/hallucigenia already pointed out is highly questionable rather than verifiable knowledge. The relationship between chakras and glands is purely speculative rather than something we can say with high confidence to be true.

    • double2
      +3
      @spaceghoti -

      Yea, I'm conceding the point! I don't think I understood the full connotations and claims to the purpose of chakras. I'd agree with the point made in the thread I linked, that the most reasonable understanding of what they would be in reality is a mnemonic type device for use in meditation, and since effects of meditation are unquantifiable for the most part, it'd be unreasonable to claim that any supposed link between chakras and glands is anything more than a placebo effect.