Aspiring for a general consensus on microvita science
Learning and teaching in "siddhi style" to avoid getting sidetracked

By Pankaj / Frank van den Bovenkamp, June 13, 2015

With the introduction of microvita, and especially microvita cosmology, Shrii P.R. Sarkar has brought the realm of "abstract" within the scope of scientific endeavour. This should not be misunderstood as an attempt to subordinate physical reality. Sure enough, the place where human imagination is born we might refer to as "the Abstract", but that does not make our imagination a causal factor. And right here lies the novelty of Sarkar's line of thinking: he introduced a level of abstraction which indeed acts as a yet unknown causal faculty, and shows that the entire field of human thoughts and feelings is an expression of matter and abstract together. Hence: "We should study the impact of the inferences on the (mental) propensities" [MV&C]. This line of thinking is neither seen before in psychology, nor in philosophy.

In classical as well as modern science, consensus is reached through experiment. If the abstract is included as a causal factor, mere lab research is insufficient. A new context, a new paradigm is required, and this new paradigm is essentially "cult" in the true sense of the term. This is as such not completely new. Every scientific breakthrough requires an update of the collective wordview, self-image, social order, etc. in order to be succesful, and this generally takes time. There is always a new level of synthesis, and indeed, a new level of abstraction, only with Sarkar's microvita theory, abstraction appears to have arrived in the most explicit and pure form.

Hence, the proper way to move forward in the field of microvita science is not the path of analysis, but the path of synthesis. More specifically, developing our conceptual powers through spiritual practice (sadhana), and thus increasing our "siddhi" (extra-ordinary power) in the field of knowing. Practically, this means that we endeavour to appreciate especially a number of new terms introduced by Sarkar, in a direct fashion, that is, internalization through the process of subjective synthesis. Once this gradually evolves, individually and collectively, there will be less dialectics on what this or that term exactly means, rather, research will be far more creative, building the required context for lab research and, ultimately, practical utilisation.

For example, the seemingly inconspicuous and rather poetic phrase "on the silver lining between matter and abstract". Analytically, its meaning seems quite obvious, i.e. there is a boundary between what we consider "matter" and "abstract", and, in this case, microvita (and energy) move exactly on that boundary. Case closed. But how educative is that really? Only through deep introspection we may discover that this "boundary", rather than being a bleak bookkeeping figure, constitutes a phase of sophisticated interaction in which all new terms introduced by Sarkar start making sense as they are playing together, forming a special state on the edge of equilibrium. Not only that, this so called "plus-or-minus equilibrium" is a manifestation of the internal mode of operation of "Consciousness" itself, that is, the Swabhava process, within the field of external- and original inferences, sub-waves and microvita plus energy.

It could also be called "consummate perspective". None of the novel terms introduced by Sarkar can be fully appreciated without all the others, and this is why microvita science must be an approach of synthesis, and not one of face-value de-mystification. Therefore, in order to begin a consensus process in the field of microvita studies, the starting point must be the aspiration to come to a full orchestration of the whole new line of thinking, and then as a result there will be a congenial understanding of the individual faculties.

As a learning and teaching modality, the same Swabhava process avoids getting sidetracked by endless philosophical regression and pointless explanatorism.

Back to