Does the "Shakti" of philosophy account for all creation?
Different approaches in philosophy and science

By Pankaj / Frank van den Bovenkamp, Aug. 26, 2015

Preliminary note
: the name "Shrii P.R. Sarkar" is used at this place, however with the understanding that his treatises on spiritual philosophy (Dharshan Shastra) were given by him as spiritual preceptor, Shrii Shrii Anandamurtii.

"Ananda Sutram", Shrii P.R. Sarkar's exalted spiritual treatise, takes the reader on a joyful inner journey of unparalelled scope, depth and inner consistency. Arguably, in terms of a philosophy of creation, nothing more needs to be said. For those who are eager and receptive, studying Ananda Sutram can be a life altering experience - not once, but ceaselessly. One could say that, allthough Ananda Sutram is philosophy, and hence it is an intellectual journey, more than anything it fulfills the heart, and rather than challenging, it consoles and conveniences the endlessly questioning intellect so that we are not bothered and can move ahead in our spiritual endeavours.

This being said, it is only natural that those attempting to apprehend and speak about Sarkar's (quote) "new line of thinking" on cosmology, cannot possibly believe that there can exist different approaches, other contexts, in other words, that Sarkar's own phrase "this is a new line of thinking", is all but frivolous. This even notwithstanding the fact that Sarkar himself, in the same line of text and in the most explicit terms distanced himself from certain key concepts of that same philosophy, and subsequently introduced new terms, with a quite different meaning. This new line of thinking is microvita cosmology.

The question is not whether or not microvita theory means a departure from Ananda Sutram, that is especially from the Cosmic Cycle. It does not and there is no reason for that. Nor is the question how good we are at making "meaningfull connections" between the two lines of thought. Even without going into any technicalities, from a mere literary point of view it is immediately clear that Sarkar himself never seeks such comparisons, on the contrary, as aforesaid, in his new theory he explicitly distances himself from certain philosophical concepts to avoid confusion.

There is however a single, unifying concept that runs like a silver thread, not only through all of creation, but also through all of philosophy and theory, and this is the concept of Cosmic Nucleus. Obviously, depending on the context or point of view, the concept of Cosmic Nucleus may have a somewhat different meaning and impact, and a different importance here or there. Thus, we may investigate the role of Cosmic Nucleus in Ananda Sutram, especially the Cycle of Creation, as well as in microvita cosmology.

In philosophy, the initial sutra's are: "Shivashaktyatmakam Brahma" and "Shaktih sa Shivashya Shakti". In fact it shows how the unchangeable Entity can yet have a creative force, and that's why the implications of these two sutra's are extremely deep and far reaching. Consequently, the third sutra implies that the primordial creation axiom allready contains the entire Cycle of Creation - that is, upon a sufficiently deep level of introspection: "Tayoh Siddhih saincara pratisaincara ca". This is not easy to understand. Now, before the Cycle of Creation actually unfolds in all its splendour, variety and detail, another pivotal phenomena is introduced, and this the Cosmic Nucleus: "Paramashiva Purusottama Vishvashya Kendram". In other words, prior to the Cosmic Nucleus there is no actual manifestation - everything remains in axiomatic or implicite form.

Now the obvious question is: is the effect of the Cosmic Nucleus something alltogether different than what can be expected as being brought about by Shiva's Force, Shakti? And if so, does this mean that the central creation axiom (the first 2 or 3 sutra's) is yet somewhat limited in scope or universality? And how would that allow, at least theoretically, the existence of very different, yet fully valid other approaches?

But first: what means Cosmic Nucleus? At least philosophically it simply means appreciating and cultifying the universality of finite, conditional states, and in that sense, one might say that the Cosmic Nucleus, that is, Purusottama, is the pivotal Entity in a partially dualistic approach ("Advaitadvaitadvaita"). Therefore it is also a cardinal principle while introducing spirituality for the upliftment of society. And this is precisely shown in Ananda Sutram, by first introducing the Cycle of Creation in principle, then first the concept of Cosmic Nucleus, and only then will the extroversial and introversial phases of creation with all their peculiarities unfold.

So, what does the Cosmic Nucleus do what Shakti obviously can't, and what does this mean in terms of other approaches not at all based on "Shiva" and "Shakti"? Philosophically, Shakti is and remains the (only) Force of Shiva, and so Purusottama does not imply a force, only a stance. That is, a stance within, or with respect to that primordial state (the initial creation sutra's). It is a universal approach, that is, Purusottama does not depend on personal preferences, sentiments, etc.. The practical consequence is however, that based on personal choises, one may be less or more inclined toward Purusottama, or even embrace Him as the one singlemost desideratum in life. For Him only they live and die, they smile and cry. They see only Him in the face of a child, in a beautiful sunrise and in a noble deed, everything revolves around Him only, every moment is for Him and every movement is towards Him. This is the life of a devotee. Psychologically, it can mean the sublimation of one's most personal goals, desires, engagements, relations, etc.. making them glamourous and universal. This Purusottama cult, so to say, assimilates and neutralizes the sense of external movements of Shakti in one's life, creating a deep, oceanic feeling of peace, however without aspiring for the unconditional state. It is an endlessly, self-perpetuating condition, from one life to the next. Shrii P.R. Sarkar is decisively clear on this point:

"Since the beginning of creation humans have been aspiring for this merger with the Nucleus Consciousness. The non-uniformity of speed changes the movement of the unit mind to an elliptical force, and the motion changes to oval from circular. They get merged in Purusottama who aspire for Him as the ultimate destiny, but those who aim at moksa, where sadhana is the complete surrender of self into That (Nirguna Brahma, the Objectless Consciousness), get out of this Brahma Cakra by a tangential touch". ("Taraka Brahma", June 1, 1959)

"Those who perform sadhana twice a day invariably, the thought of Parama Purusa will certainly arise in their mind at the moment of death.." ("Supreme Command" - that is, a supreme truth for those who perform this type of sadhana..).

In a theoretical, rather scientific approach, the role and meaning of Cosmic Nucleus must be somewhat different. Certainly the name "Purusottama" is not used in this context. Those who argue that the "Doer-I" in microvita cosmology is primordial and the "Knower-I" is secondary do have a point. However if this viewpoint is taken in an isolated sense, it jeopardizes the line of thinking of Sarkar of introducing two original (internal) "Purusa" Faculties - that is, respectively, Krta Purusa and Jina Purusa. In other words, there can be no question of primacy of either of the faculties. An approach, which neither favours primacy (obviously of the Doer-I), nor a plain opposition, is realized in the formation of a subtle "plus-or-minus equilibrium" among the faculties. This is Sarkar's new line of thinking in a nutshell. Therefore, the most exalted stance in microvita theory is seeing the Universal Entity in that form, on that "silver lining between matter and abstract", rather than in the endless cycles of conditional appearances and disappearances it constitutes.

Like in philosophy, without cultifying the "Purusottama stance", as the "all-seeing I", in microvita science there can be no clear perception, no true fathoming of the deep ocean. But unlike in philosophy, there is no idea of Shiva or Shakti, as there is no question of a cult that invokes and perpetuates the idea of Shiva-Shakti creation in the first place. It is a new line of thinking, a different creational axiom, and a different and arguably more incisive take on "Swabhava", the "characteristic bearing" of the Universal Entity.

Microvita science has the potential to solve some problems in society in new and different ways. "I think, by dint of our spiritual sadhana, rather our physico-psycho-spiritual sadhana, our minds will develop in all strata, and the power of conception, the power of conceiving, will also develop, and with that developed conceiving power, we will know all the secrets of these microvita".

Back to