View Full Version : The Microvita Theory of P.R. Sarkar

06-22-2011, 06:13 PM

Recently, on another thread… http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2123-Alchemists-sure-are-pale!&p=14746#post14746 …I offhandedly mentioned Microvita Theory when it occurred to me that it might have some similarities with other ideas I‘d encountered elsewhere. Following are links to material on that subject, should anyone feel prompted to engage in further investigations. I had printed-out & bound some pages on the subject years ago but am just now really getting into it. And, so far [i.e., today], I’ve discovered a sufficient number of conceptual gems to compel me to delve a bit deeper this time around. Yes, there is a religious group that has spun off of this [orange robes, etc.] but it seems there are also more than a few individuals out there who, by applying Microvita Theory to their respective modalities of exploration, seem to have garnered fruitful results - to one degree or another.

Perhaps, after I’ve done some more reading, I’ll submit a modest selection of quotes that, due to their tangential relevance to some of the concepts bandied about by some of the regular-posing-members, might possibly be of use to them.






















The excerpt below offers an interesting alternative to the central logical propositions of both Samkhya and Vedanta Philosophies - which I always felt were “off” in certain respects. It may seem like the height of hubris [for me] to question the concepts of any popularly-recognized-as-being-enlightened-beings, who have supposedly enjoyed a more exalted Samadhi state [ http://www.meditationexpert.com/zen-buddhism-tao/index.htm - an excellent, informative cultivation site] than that of the questioner. But I believe that we all are on “both sides,” so to speak - the central depths [and possible intermediate levels] acting as a sort of “strange attractor” drawing us onward. And, just because an individual has cultivated a high degree of Gong-Fu, it doesn’t necessarily follow that their relative ability to philosophically illuminate others is beyond improvement [untouchable]. They could, to some degree, simply be fitting their experience to the tradition they feel best maps their experience.

I include this somewhat lengthy quote because the central proposition of any Philosophy/Cosmology is important and should, to me, include the relative validity of individuality and manifest existence. To offer a simple picture [along the lines of De Cusa http://jasper-hopkins.info/ , http://jasper-hopkins.info/DI-I-12-2000.pdf , http://jasper-hopkins.info/NA12-2000.pdf ]: An a-priory omni-center implies both periphery and radius. Existence, and existing individuals partake of, in varying degrees, all three. [Um, that’s not some sort of proof of anything, just a consideration that the outer [and intermediate] reflects the inner and needn’t be discarded. Sorry, I’m starting to muse out-loud here…

[Note: “A.M.” = Ananda Marga]


This su'tra deals with the conjunctive relation between consciousness and immanent principle. The immanent principle although infinite and unborn, is subservient to the consciousness.

Consciousness in qualified state is the controller of the principles - He is controlling sentient, mutative, and static forces. In the language of M.G - "In the process of creation consciousness is the efficient or instrumental cause and the operative principle acts like a conjunctive agency linking the efficient or instrumental cause with the material one. Consciousness plays the important role in creation and operative principle is subordinate to the efficient cause." Consciousness is all pervasive entity and operative principle being deprived of pervasive character is sheltered in consciousness. Consciousness is the base and operative principle is based on Him. It is to be noted carefully that this mutual relation does not indicate the comparative greater or shorter form; since "there is no such scope of exclusive greatness or smallness on part of either consciousness or operative principle." In Sa'm'khya philosophy the mutual relation between consciousness and operative principle has been described through a blind and lame man. In su'tra no. 21 of Sa'm'khyaka'rika it is said, "Prakrti and Purus'a are like a blind man and a lame man respectively. As a blind man can walk easily taking the lame man on his shoulder and the lame man can walk easily on the shoulder of the blind, similarly is the relation between Purus'a and Prakrti.

Although this simile suffers from two mean objections - namely: (1) Here Purus'a and Prakrti have been held to be two separate entities, (2) Purus'a and Prakrti are equally interdependent on each other. We have already discussed that the existence of two separate infinite entities is unphilosophical. This simile has not been accepted in A.M. philosophy to explain the conjunctive relation between consciousness and operative principle. It sounds invalid to compare Purus'a with a lame man and operative principle with a blind man. These two entities are not independent of each other, rather consciousness is not subservient to operative principle. Operative principle has to act as the consciousness has her to be. But in Sa'm'khyaka'rika su'tra no. 65 it has been explained that Purus'a is witnessing Prakrti as if Prakrti has independent way of action. This contention has in A.M. philosophy and the idea of Independence or unbridled freedom has been categorically denied. To quote M.G. in His explanation of this su'tra, "The role of Purus'a is foremost in all the spheres. Prakrti only acts to whatever extent the Purus'a has authorized or authorizes her to act....Even though Prakrti is free to make honest use of Her acquired power, the attainment or non-attainment of this power depends on Purus'a or Consciousness."

From the fore-going statement, it is not proved that Purus'a is the progenitor of Prakrti. Prakrti is dependent on Purus'a but Purus'a is not Her creator since Prakrti is infinite and unborn also. Naturally, the question will arise as to how the infinite Purus'a is controlling infinite Prakrti. From a philosophical stand-point, infinite Purus'a cannot be the controller of infinite Prakrti. But to solve the riddle a common example will serve the purpose. A man has both the will-force and the consciousness. The will-force cannot walk beyond the range of consciousness. The conscious state of a man induces the will-force into action. Here the question whether the will-force or the consciousness is important is out of place. Still we have to say that the human will-force is based on human consciousness and it cannot go beyond the range of consciousness. Operative principle is like the will-force of Brahma and Purus'a is the consciousness. Therefore, the simile of a blind and a lame does not hold good.

According to AM philosophy, Purus'a determines the extent of work assigned to Prakrti and also the modus operandi how she will accomplish her task. She accomplishes the task accredited to her by Purus'a. The extent of freedom and independence enjoyed by Prakrti is a sheer gift of Purus'a. Thus it is proved that Prakrti enjoys a limited amount of independence. But this independence is quite apart from that of Sa'm'khya. Sa'm'khya holds that Prakrti is completely independent of Purus'a. But according to AM philosophy, although Prakrti enjoys independence in her own sphere, in subtle sense this freedom is dependent on Purus'a because Purus'a is controlling the 'three principles. So, it is proved that Prakrti is completely under the control of Purus'a. The independent resistance of Prakrti may be acceptable to philosophy but in the ultimate analysis, the very concept of independence of Prakrti breaks down.

AM philosophy is based on "Absolute Monism". M.G. has introduced this new term in the history of monistic philosophies in order to show the inherent defect in the so-called monistic ontology. It has already been discussed in the fore-going paragraphs that the concept of qualified and non-qualified state of consciousness is not indicative of polytheism or dualism; it is conducive to the concept of absolute monism, it is its complement. The very attempt to segregate Prakrti from Purus'a and vice-versa is to strike at the very root of monistic philosophy. Monism is bound to suffer a set-back if a conjunctive concomitance is not shown between Purus'a and Prakrti. This is the very reason of the metaphysical set-back of Veda'nta and Sa'm'khya. In the Sa'm'khya philosophy an artificial attempt is evident to establish some sort of monism after showing a water-tight division between Purus'a and Prakrti, The original commentator of the Veda'nta was aware of this metaphysical lapse of Sa'm'khya philosophy. That is why in the Veda'nta it is said that everything of the creation emanates from the thought projection of Brahma. No important place has been assigned to Prakrti, rather it is discarded as delusion (MA'YA) and Brahma has been shown playing an important and solo role in creation. This metaphysical conclusion has landed the Veda'nta into another metaphysical fallacy. The Veda'nta could not solve an important question: how an imperfect creation could emerge from perfect Brahma. This is a major set-back of the Vedanta philosophy.

In AM philosophy a very easy solution has been given to these metaphysical lapses of two important monistic schools, Sa'm'khya and Veda'nta. Prakrti has been shown as subordinate efficient cause-of the creation. If the role of Prakrti is undermined or denied in the process of creation, there will be no difficulty to establish the validity of monism but the metaphysical aspect of creation will not be established.

This is the very reason that in AM philosophy the very creation has not been described as a non-entity or delusion with a view to establishing a monistic metaphysics, rather an elaborate logic and explanation has been invented. This is the first endeavor in the history of Indian philosophy to find out conjunctive unanimity between the creator and the creation. In certain Indian philosophical schools like Vaesheshika and Miima'm'sa' this has been accepted that the creation is infinite in order to avoid certain metaphysical complexities, although this attempt has been interpreted in some corner as materialism. In both the philosophies the very reality of creation has been altogether denied but in AM philosophy both these extremes have been conceded to in a synthesis wherein the creation has been shown as an objective reality, not apart from its subjective counterpart. In order to come back to the theory of absolute monism, Purus'a has been shown as principal cause and Prakrti as the subordinate one.

Brahma in His qualified state is controlling the three principles of Prakrti but in the non-qualified state, He is neither controlling the principles of Prakrti nor is there any scope of such question. The fine line of distinction between the qualified and non-qualified state of Brahma is based on the qualifying principle of Prakrti. In both the states of Brahma, the adjective "qualified" is present. When the three principles of Prakrti cannot qualify Brahma, He is non-qualified. Whereas when Brahma is controlling the three principles and as well as their various manifestations without being least influenced, He is called qualified. The very efficiency of Prakrti is latent in her three principles and Prakrti being unborn and infinite, the question of the origin and end of these principles does not arise. But the modus operandi of these principles are being determined by Purus'a. This su'tra has proved that AM philosophy is not based on polytheism, deism or but on the solid ground of Absolute Monism as its base.