There was recently a question about chakras -- What are the original colors of the 7 main chakras? -- which, while not being particularly well asked, was closed with a raft of negative comments saying things like “chakras are Hindu not Buddhist” and “Buddhism doesn’t accept chakras”.
It is not hard to find chakras in Buddhism. Ancient Buddhism no less. There are long-standing systems and Buddhist traditions that have been practicing with and teaching chakras, going back as far as the 6thC or before. Sure, they aren’t found in the Pali canon - but “Buddhism” as a topic does not stop at the Pali canon.
It would be far more honourable and noble for editors and answerers to stick to the areas of Buddhism that they know something about, rather than to make spurious claims and pronouncements about what they know nothing of.
As I commented in the said question, to claim that chakras are not found in Buddhism is tantamount to saying that the Dalai Lama is not Buddhist. Not only him, but all four schools of traditional Tibet, as well as numerous other traditions of Vietnam, Nepal, China, Korea, Japan, and elsewhere.
You may not like it, but these traditions are long-standing Buddhist, traditions and are recognised as such globally. From the ‘50s (and earlier) vast amounts of work was invested into recognising the importance of working together as Buddhist traditions - not some weird unified catholic sangha but a mutual recognition of diversity and practice within the framework of the teachings of Our Lord Buddha.
Can we please get this sorted out once and for all? Those who can close - please close for good reasons, not for ignorant ones.
And commentors - really. It’s important to qualify the scope of your comments: who could dispute that ‘chakras are not found in the Pali canon’? But it is too easy to dispute ‘Buddhism’. You only need to open any number of Buddhist texts of eg the Tibetan Kanjur (the repository of Sanskrit source texts translated into Tibetan) to find mention of chakra.
