To that collection of “pros” and “cons” I’ll add another “con” from someone whom I asked to read the article referenced in my original post, an energy worker who prefers to remain anonymous:
Reading through the article I see that my information is completely coming from a different perspective. If you want my honest answer, that group of beings taking a look at this are being diddled by the nonclarity that is in their energy fields when they are attempting to read through that lens. their info neither resonated with me nor did it feel accurate. iIf they got their energy fields more clear and took more responsibility for their lives there would be a different perceptions. The chakras themselves are not cones. They are the spinning globe that sits inside the body. the cones are the energetic swirls that resonate off them. we have different info.
Them pulling out the cones is probalby the closest they’ve come to actually removing cords and other foreign programs that they may have inherited through enculturation and other programming. Giving themselves a healing is great, but saying by removing these things they are closing down the chakras? Well, they can think that, but they wouldn’t be functional bodies if they didn’t have them…
A.K. (me) in response:
I don’t know how I feel about this. I do think that it’s a very interesting concept, though muddied, as you say, that I also agree with . . . If you see on my blog, there’s one woman commentator who says she’s always known that she has no chakras!
I’d rather not be quoted . . .
Okay, I’ll just call you “an energy worker”. Would still like to use what you say, if that’s all right with you.
For what purpose? To start a conversation? to show contrast? You are such a little shit stirrer!
What i’m wondering is who is the being that is planting this seed of remove your chakras? That is a more interesting question to me. not the silly people who try it out.
Well, well! Since I always gravitate to “stirring up trouble,” meaning “calling into question whatever I take for granted,” I dug further. And discovered that Lance White (aka Zany Mystic) who reposted that post of mine, interviewed Anelia Benz on the topic. You can hear what she says from about minute 6 to minute 12 here.
Anelia’s point seems to be that chakras are “structures” like any other, and can be created and dissolved at will, once one becomes conscious and clear. That they are tools, and can be used for (programmed for?) good or ill. By the way, she says they are “very beautiful” (I presume she means visually) and has no opinion on when the chakra system was “inserted,” if it was originally used to program people in a certain way, and so on.
He also pointed me to another source, Carla Fox —
and to her source, George Kavassilas.
Which happened to zoom me full circle back to, yep, Zany Mystic, who wrote a post on this subject back in February of this year:
So geez, who’s the “little shit-stirrer,” eh?
It’s fun — and verrry instructive to call into question things that we are so attached to that we feel defensive at the idea of even looking at them as either temporary or unnecessary. This happened to me when a friend of mine started to use the “sidereal” zodiac rather than the one I used, the “tropical” zodiac. Way back in the early ’90s I think it was. I was incensed! “That can’t possibly be true!” Meaning: How dare she!
I had to look at my own reactiveness there, and it wasn’t pretty!