Modern physics has increasingly advanced the idea that what we perceive as “reality” is composed of far more than dense, solid matter. Instead, it points to an almost unfathomable field of energy, movement, and relationality within a vast expanse of space that is, paradoxically, mostly empty. Even the most solid objects consist primarily of space, structured by patterns of vibration and force. At the quantum level, matter is not static but dynamic, responsive, and deeply entangled with observation itself. While popular interpretations often overstate the role of human thought, contemporary science nevertheless acknowledges that observation and measurement participate in shaping how reality appears (Arntz, Chasse & Vicente, 2007).
What is striking is that this worldview is not entirely new. Long before particle accelerators and quantum field theory, yogic sages articulated cosmologies in which consciousness (cit) and energy (śakti) were not separate from matter but intrinsic to it. These insights were articulated within systems such as Sāṃkhya Darśana and later Vedāntic and Tantric philosophies. Western thinkers and scientists including Bohr, Einstein, Pauli, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and Wigner would later grapple with similar questions, often noting resonances between quantum physics and mystical metaphysics, though from very different epistemological standpoints (Marin, 2009). At the heart of both perspectives lies a shared intuition: reality is participatory, layered, and far more subtle than ordinary perception suggests.
Human sensory perception is, by necessity, limited. There are countless layers of reality that the senses cannot directly register, rendering much of existence effectively invisible to us (Journeau, 2007). Scientific instruments can extend perception beyond these limits, translating data into visual or mathematical representations, but these remain interpretations rather than direct experience. Complicating matters further, human perception itself is subjective and variable, shaped by neurological, psychological, and cultural factors (Naini & Naini, 2009).
Long before modern instruments existed, contemplatives explored these hidden dimensions through disciplined inner practices: meditation, visualization, ritual, mantra, refined sensory awareness, and, in some contexts, entheogenic substances. In yogic and Tantric traditions, the layers of existence that lie beyond ordinary perception, particularly as they relate to the human organism, are often referred to as the sūkṣma (subtle) dimensions. Master yogins cultivated extraordinary sensitivity to the energetic and psychophysical dimensions of the body-mind, developing sophisticated methods to perceive, map, and engage these layers through sustained practice.
Across cultures, there exist countless metaphysical, spiritual, and philosophical systems that describe subtle energies under different names and models (Chiasson, 2013). While the terminology varies, many traditions converge on a multi-layered understanding of the human being: the physical body, subtler energetic or vital dimensions, the mental-emotional layer, and a causal or foundational level of experience. Among the most intricate explorations of this terrain emerge from Tantric traditions, within which we find what later came to be known in the West as the chakra system (Sanskrit: cakra, “wheel” or “circle”). Importantly, this system represents only one element within the vast and diverse world of Tantric metaphysics and practice.
The terms Tantra and cakra often evoke strong assumptions in modern discourse, many of which are historically inaccurate. A critical distinction must be made between the meanings these words held in their classical Sanskrit contexts and how they are commonly used today. Scholars, including Christopher Wallis (Hareesh), distinguish between Classical Tantra and what is now termed Neo-Tantra. Classical Tantra refers broadly to a family of initiatory, ritual-based traditions that flourished primarily between approximately 800–1100 CE, later influencing Haṭha Yoga traditions and certain forms of Vajrayāna Buddhism (Wallis, 2015). Neo-Tantra, by contrast, is a modern construction, emerging in the early twentieth century and shaped by Western esotericism, psychology, Theosophy, New Age spirituality, and contemporary ideas of “sacred sexuality.”
In its classical sense, Tantra denotes a body of revealed texts (tantras), ritual technologies, and contemplative methods transmitted through lineage and initiation. These traditions were often esoteric, orally transmitted, and highly contextual. Practices included deity visualization (devatā-dhyāna), mantra recitation, ritual worship (pūjā), yantra meditation, and subtle body practices involving prāṇa, nāḍīs (channels), and cakras. While the details varied widely by lineage, deity, and goal, most Tantric systems understood reality as a dynamic interplay between Śiva (pure consciousness) and Śakti (creative power or manifested reality), neither of which was considered incomplete without the other.
Neo-Tantra, as Hareesh carefully explains in Chakras Illuminated, draws selectively from these traditions while largely removing their practices from their ritual, cosmological, and initiatory contexts. The result is a hybrid system that often bears little resemblance to historical Tantra. This divergence is particularly evident in contemporary chakra teachings.
What most people recognize today as “the chakra system” is a standardized, seven-chakra model popularized in the West during the twentieth century. In this model, chakras are depicted as fixed, spinning vortices aligned along the spinal column, associated with rainbow colors, psychological traits, endocrine glands, crystals, essential oils, and emotional states (Judith, 1996). These chakras are said to be “blocked,” “open,” or “closed,” with spiritual progress framed as a process of alignment and activation.
Hareesh notes that none of these features appear in classical Sanskrit sources. In Classical Tantra, cakras were not universal anatomical structures but flexible, symbolic constructs used as supports for meditation and ritual. Their number varied widely, from as few as three to dozens, depending on the text and lineage. Their locations were not fixed, nor were they conceived as spinning wheels of colored light. Rather than being psychological diagnostic tools, cakras functioned as loci for installing mantras, seed syllables (bīja), deities, and cosmological principles within the subtle body. They were not considered “unbalanced,” vulnerable to external interference, or in need of healing. As Wallis emphasizes, they were descriptive and functional within a given practice, not prescriptive maps of an objective inner anatomy (Wallis, 2016).
This contrast highlights a significant philosophical shift. The modern chakra system externalizes responsibility, suggesting that spiritual or emotional difficulties arise from malfunctioning energetic structures. Classical Tantra, by contrast, treated cakras as ritual technologies, consciously constructed and dissolved through practice, never mistaken for literal entities existing independently of the practitioner’s intention and training.
None of this is to suggest that modern chakra systems are meaningless or without value. Rather, it is to acknowledge that they belong to a different historical and philosophical framework. Confusion arises when contemporary interpretations are presented as ancient truth. A sincere seeker benefits from understanding the origins, purposes, and limitations of the systems they engage.
Ritual and practice derive their depth not from aesthetic appeal alone, but from informed participation. Without clarity of context, even powerful practices risk becoming hollow gestures. Discernment, therefore, is not a barrier to spirituality but its ally, allowing tradition, innovation, and personal experience to meet with integrity rather than confusion.
Arntz, W., Chasse, B. &
Vicente, M. (2007). What the bleep do we know!?: Discovering the endless possibilities for altering your everyday reality. Deerfield
Beach, FL: Health Communications, Inc.
Chiasson, A.M. (2013). Energy
healing: The essentials of self-care. Boulder,
CO: Sounds True, Inc.
Journeau, P. F. (2007). Evolution of the concept of dimension. AIP
Conference Proceedings, 905(1), p 153-156. DOI: 10.1063/1.2737004.
Judith, A.
(1996). Eastern body Western mind: Psychology
and the chakra system as a path to the self. Berkeley, CA:
Celestial.
Marin, J.M. (2009) Mysticism in
quantum mechanics: The forgotten controversy. European Journal of Physics, 30(4), p.
807–822.
Wallis, Christopher Hareesh (2016). The real
story on the Chakras. [Website Blog] Retrieved from https://hareesh.org/blog/2016/2/5/the-real-story-on-the-chakras
Wallis, Christopher Hareesh (2015). What is Tantra?: Setting the record straight. [Website Blog] Retrieved from https://hareesh.org/blog/2015/8/2/what-is-tantra-setting-the-record-straight