"It is one of the human wonts that whatever we do not know, in order to conceal our limitations or hide our imperfections, we either say that it is non-existent, or in a more intelligent style, we will say it is an abstract" 1.
Clearly of the first strategy - that of denial - is H.J. de Weijer's statement: "Every day it becomes clearer that the old dichotomy of matter and mind needs to be replaced by the polarity of energy and consciousness" 2.
What is this supposed to mean? Is it another way of saying, everything is Shiva and Shakti, like in philosophy? It sounds like that. Or is it another way of saying, everything is Krta Purusa and Jina Purusa, as in microvita theory?
What is clear, is that Krta Purusa and Jina Purusa are not the same as Shiva and Shakti. Instead, introducing certain well-chosen terms obviously linking to both could easily been seen as a surreptitious attempt to reframe difficult microvita science into convenient philosophy without having to understand or explain "that which we do not know".
Moreover, that which supposedly "becomes clearer every day" refers to the same idea published earlier by the author himself, explicitly attempting to explain microvita theory in terms of Shiva Shakti philosophy - moreover, a medieval version of it, not even the modern interpretation of Sarkar himself. 3,4 The latter was in a non-reviewed magazine. The former was in a reviewed journal, however in a special issue of which the author himself was guest-editor 2. So whatever it is that "becomes clearer every day", most likely it is not that microvita science is the "polarity of Shiva and Shakti".
It might be good to notice that these ideas are being published by an author presenting himself as a researcher at the Global Association of Neohumanist Educators (GANE), in other words, an institute affiliated with the preceptor of microvita science.
Let's just be clear: Microvita science is not Shiva Shakti philosophy. It is not philosophy at all, so that's why Sarkar called it a theory. This does not need any technical analysis to understand - some high-school level literature reading is sufficient. Instead, in physical terms microvita theory is based on inferences and sub-waves. 6,7 Other research, inspired by but currently not directly relating to microvita science concerns an extended (geometrical) modeling of free-moving and orbiting electrons 8 . Such kind of approaches could potentially help create an opening in modern science (specifically quantum physics) to connect to microvita- resp. sub-wave cosmology.
Sarkar explicitly urged that "Our task is gigantic and we are to start our research work regarding these microvita immediately without any further delay, otherwise many problems in modern society will not be solved in a nice way" 1. To know what these "many problems" are, just read the newspapers. Obviously these are problems which cannot be solved with Shiva Shakti philosophy, because then they would have been solved already thousands of years ago.
Moreover, whereas Sarkar explicitly referred to "Jina Purusa" as being energy 5, he never identified its natural complement, microvita, as being "Consciousness". One can easily see that if something is called "Purusa", it must refer to Consciousness. In other words, Krta Purusa and Jina Purusa are both internal Faculties of Consciousness, allthough the rather philosophical term "Consciousness" is not used by Sarkar in direct connection with microvita.
Moverover, in 40+ lectures on microvita, Sarkar used the terms "Consciousness", "Shiva" and "Shaki" only rarely and circumstancially. At the same time, microvita and energy are explained very clearly, without using existing philosophical terms 5.
Moreover, Sarkar explicitly introduced "new Samskrta terms" himself, laying the foundation of microvita theory 5. So why would one replace them by again other terms of one's own choise?
Moreover, Sarkar explicitly distanced himself from philosophical terms from the Shiva Shakti school, while explicitly replacing them by aforesaid terms, very obviously to lend the concept credibility and pave the way for a truly scientific approach 5.
Moreover, Sarkar referred to his new theory as "a new line of thinking" 5, which clearly cannot be said about Shiva Shakti philosophy. Why the need of turning back to an old line of thinking?
Therefore, especially in this early stage of discovery and exploration, those who believe that P.R. Sarkar's "new line of thinking" on life and cosmology could be of any value in their life and for (very near) future society, should study the original materials and not get distracted by attempts "to conceal our limitations or hide our imperfections".