Microvita theory versus philosophy - new approaches, new solutions
By Pankaj / Frank van den Bovenkamp, Oct. 04, 2014
Since its very inception, microvita theory has puzzled all who seriously set out to investigate it on any meaningful level, "by developing our intuitional powers", as to its relation to philosophy. That means practically, comparing microvita theory to Srsti Cakra. Allthough seeking such kind of parallels was never encouraged or even merely suggested by its preceptor, P.R. Sarkar, himself, this sort of inquiry is somewhat understandable for a number of reasons. Firstly, Srsti Cakra has become legendary in certain circles (pun intended..) as the seemingly one and only philosophy of creation - the final word on the entire subject matter so to speak. Secondly, Srsti Cakra does not require any advanced level of intuition or intellectual competence and discipline. Arguably one can say it is tailored for the masses, to serve as a truly charming and satisfactory philosophical background story, easing the intellect, rather than challenging it. Expectedly, all attempts to understand or interpret microvita theory on any progressive, or even merely on any meaningful level, using Srsti Cakra as a reference standard, remained utterly fruitless.
Fact of the matter is, not only did Sarkar not encourage any comparison between microvita theory Srsti Cakra, he actually explicitly stepped away from it by saying: "This is a new line of thinking, a new philosophical approach - the 'Knower-I' and 'Doer-I' are not necessarily the same as the "Aham' and 'Mahat' in philosophy. We have to introduce new Sanskrta terms". It is completely obvious that one cannot leave behind crucial concepts such as "Aham" or "Mahat", without completely dissociating one's line of thinking from Srsti Cakra. It seems that over the period of a few decades, this phrase, and certainly its significance, have been formidably overlooked in almost all attempts and all publications related to microvita, with the direct consequence that the increase in understanding was less than mediocre, if not utterly negligible.
At the same time, the introduction of a new line of thinking about cosmology is not the same as saying that the "old line of thinking" is as of yet obsolete. It would be a strange policy indeed, to first introduce, teach and widely cultify a certain concept over a period of more than 30 years, only to replace it, out of the blue, by something completely different. At the same time, the "new concept" is itself also not exactly trivial - P.R. Sarkar dedicated not less than 41 discourses to the subject of microvita theory, including some quite unique scholarly sessions, apart from countless references and several practical demonstrations. Also worthwhile to consider is that the different human attempts to capture something of the essential, hidden (indeed, "occult") principles of the creation, that is, to look into a deeper level of causality than usual, don't in any way change the fact that the creation as such is and remains one and indivisible. This not only justifies to at least aspire for making connections among different traditions and contemporary approaches, but at the same time highlights the core issue of choices we make, and are bound to make, in order to be able to discern something of the inner workings of creation to begin with.
Whatever the philosophical or theoretical line of thinking, in any case we must be alert on dogmatic interpretations of any kind. That we can say for sure will make any level of meaningful, progressive cross-comparison impossible. In this particular case, in the case of Srsti Cakra, the customary association of the final result of the extroversion, that is "citta" ("mindstuff"), with a "crudified" form of consciousness may actually cause confusion of a rather dogmatic nature. This "crudification dogma" is to some degree nurtured by the very essence and meaning of Srsti Cakra itself, in the sense that this is something we are aspiring to move away from, that is, during the course of general evolution, and especially through spiritual cult. This movement obviously constitutes the introversial phase. It will be shown how this particular "dogma" not only prevents meaningful comparison with more contemporary approaches, such as microvita theory but also modern science, but also may obscure a clear and simple understanding of Srsti Cakra in the first place.
The solution to avoid dogmatic interpretations is readily there in Srsti Cakra itself. That is, the initial few sutra's by themselves allready contain the entire cycle of creation and all its diverse aspects in a nutshell, like waiting in seedform only to be unpacked in a natural, sequential fashion, in the subsequent sutra's. In that sense, the sutra's not merely "describe" Srsti Cakra, they "are" it - the container and the content are one and the same. It must be said, this proves the genius of how P.R. Sarkar has laid out the entire creation philosophy, and why memorizing it means far more than a mere scholarly exersize. These initial sutra's simply describe the choice we make in order to be able to say something meaningful about the hidded aspects of the creation which we are part of, and the immediate philosophical implications. This will be detailed now, and it will be shown how this enables a meaningful correlation with truly different lines of thinking, and may as well help explain Srsti Cakra itself less ambiguously.
For the sake of the special purpose of correlating Srsti Cakra with microvita theory, especially the third sutra gives a profound clue. "Paramashivah Purusottama Visvashya Kendram" - Purusottama is [the name of] the Cosmic Nucleus [i.e. in every entity], and is Universal Consciousness. There may be different ways, or different emphasizes to explain it. The direct relevance to microvita theory and also to modern science is that in the creation, Consciousness has turned, or appears to have turned, from One, into many. The sensitive reader may realize right away that this allready provides a non-ambiguous clue as to the meaning of the final stance, that is, "citta". Instead of identifying "citta" as "crudified" Consciousness, we simply identify it as the state of diversity. The whole idea of Srsti Cakra lies in recognizing that there is a difference between "Oneness" in the absolute sense, that is "Brahma", and oneness-in-diversity. The latter is a completely correct and valid explanation of "citta", and does not in the least invoke associations with "crudification" or "crudeness". Another key principle is the term "recognizing". This is exactly the choice we have made (rather, has been made for us..). The proof of this choice, that is, to distinguish between "Oneness-as-One, or "oneness-in-diversity", is the perception of the interaction between the two, that is, through extroversial and introversial movements, called saincara and prati-saincara. Logically, the fourth sutra is: "Tayoh siddhih saincara pratisaincara ca". It means "The proof of 'that' exists in the form of saincara and prati-saincara". The term "siddhih" here means, through "special power" or "special competence", i.e. not exactly in the sense of "occult power", but in terms of intuitional power and subtle intellectual or logical discernment.
This does not mean that Srsti Cakra is entirely theoretical. It means that we have chosen to make a distinction between oneness in absolute or relative form, and as a consequence of that choice, of that philosophical approach, saincara and pratisaincara are neither real nor unreal, but they proof to be a consistent result. Thus, firstly this has provided a handle, or leverage as it were, to unlock the secrets of creation. But also, and especially, this way it has empirically be proven, rather than merely described, that consciousness itself is the supreme, primordial faculty. To understand this deeply, that is, beyond the mere scholarly level, we have to deepen our intuitional powers and explore its inner truth and meaning, which is truly boundless. Just as explained in the 4th. sutra. So, this way Srsti Cakra can be understood less dogmatically and more non-ambiguously.
Now only based on a non-arbitrary, crystal clear interpretation of Srsti Cakra, we can begin to think of correlation with a contemporary line of thinking such as microvita theory and -cosmology, as well as modern science. In fact, the idea that what we call "citta" in philosophy is in fact "unity-in-diversity", rather than plain "crudeness", is the main theme of a discourse by P.R. Sarkar titled "Cult, Inference and Propensity". The idea of "crudeness" does not exist. Rather, the idea is that the whole creation is in fact the basis, or "launching platform" so to speak, of spiritual cult. This is not less true for the physical planes. In other words, instead of a "crudification paradigm" through the creation of distinct "Mahabhutthis" or fundamental factors, the entire focus lies on their conjoint, consolidate manifestation. So much so, that the designation of the individual "fundamental factors" of philosophy has become utterly trivial. Everything is life, and life is that expression of Oness-in-diversity.
In microvita theory, the hidden, synchronized factor in this vast, living Universe is called Krta Purusa. It is the actional faculty, conveying empathy and blissfulness because it maintains balance in the entire macrocosmic order. In microvita cosmology there is no distinction between Purusa and Prakrti, rather there is an equilibrium between the subjective and objective functions of the sentient and static principles. It is a new line of thinking. As a balancing factor, Krta Purusa is also the binding factor of each and every atom in this universe. It is the concentrated form of microvita. The Universal Cognitive Faculty is called Jina Purusa. It is the knowing faculty because it is perpetual and dynamic. It conveys a sense of infiniteness providing self-awareness to individual microcosms. In the course of evolution, the mind is first controlled by microvita. The final stage of spiritual cult is controlled by the Universal Cognitive Faculty. Inferences are waves in the extended cosmological order, and are initially perceived as external waves. In the last phase, the unit perceives the original, that is, synchronized or cosmic stance of the inferences and as a result, unit and cosmic become one.