Questions and answers on

A selection of general, topical questions
By Frank van den Bovenkamp (Pankaj) - editor
Updated Jan. 23, 2017

What is the "goal" or mission of

The title of the "official" publication with all P.R. Sarkar's discourses related to microvita, "Microvitum in a Nutshell" could not have been better chosen. The ideas presented on represent a possible way to unpack that nutshell, with an emphasis on microvita cosmology and the physics implications that come along with it. Arguably, we could roughly divide Sarkar's microvita discourses in an introductory part, the implications in many fields of research and application (the vast bulk of the work), and the cosmological context(s) in the final chapters. Without this context, the concept of "microvita" is typically taken in a somewhat unspecific style of "positive or negative vibrations" and alike. As there is less emphasis on the technicalities it may have a bit more instant satisfaction, but often leads more in-depth discussion astray. In order to help create a scientific foundation, is actually very little about "microvita" as such and much more about Sarkar's "new line of thinking" - the Four Chambers of Creation and their subtle interactions. Because of the still very pristine stage of research, and the deeply intuitional and sometimes enormously time consuming aspects of it, is not meant as a social hangout. The idea is to create a (Google..) signpost, resource and reference especially for researchers. Of course, feedback or complete essays or articles are more than welcome, and much feedback has already been used in the content.

It seems that there is little to no collaboration between different groups and / or individuals in this exciting field of research. Is that correct, and why?

It's not quite so, but basically it's the same as asking, why is there so little collaboration between dolphins, whales and beavers? It's just different evolutionary paths. One species may be smarter and more agile, others impress by their sheer size and weight, and yet others may be very clever and versatile but on closer inspection turn out not to live in the ocean. Only bacteria collaborate with all, allways and everywhere. Also, microvita science is a potentially vast field. Some may be focused on physics and cosmology, others on teaching inside or outside Shrii P.R. Sarkar's socio-spiritual organisation, and yet others explore medical or other contexts. As long as no-one claims to possess the one and only truth or monopoly or veto-right, be it technically, historically, organisationally, academically or socially, microvita science remains an open, inspirational and creative field, way too big in it's foundations as well as in it's implications to be handled by any one individual or group all by themselves.

Is the main diagram of microvita cosmology you are using different from that of P.R. Sarkar?

To put it plain and simple: no, it is not. It is exactly the same, only it is arranged in a different way. This different arrangement is sometimes magnified to conceil a limitation in understanding of the underlying principles. For example, a family with a husband, a wife and two children are sitting at the same place at the diner table everyday. Only, once a week, daddy wants to watch his favourite science channel while having diner, and then they rotate their chairs. Does this make them a different family? Obviously not. Likewise, if we want to watch the microvita "science-channel", it might be easier to use one arrangement when we want to focus on the psychological aspects, another for physics, etc. Moreover, P.R. Sarkar never gave an actual diagram to begin with, only a table. The diagram, used to show not only the "Four Chambers of the Universe" but also their unique interconnections, is not based on that table, but on the text. In other words, the structure of the diagram has a logical foundation in the original text, something which cannot actually be said of the arrangement of P.R. Sarkar's own table. In summary, there is no reason to challenge the diagram used especially for the physics implications, other than to use it as a bogus argument in a vain attempt to censure and marginalize the concepts behind it.

Additional note: One should bear in mind that P.R. Sarkar's original table is after all an indexed table. Using the indices "subjective", "objective" along one side, and "A", "B" along the other, automatically requires the table to be arranged as it is, with the consequence that the "control arrows" as described in the text necessarily must run through the centre. It might be good to mention here that the terms "A" and "B" are used, rather than "Jina Purusa" and "Krta Purusa". In other words, instead of, for example, referring to "Jina Purusa objective" and "Jina Purusa subjective", it is simply "(A) objective" resp. "(A) subjective". The obvious reason is to avoid confusion about the objective identities. That is, there is a keen difference between (for example) what would be the actual objective Jina Purusa or "objective counterpart", and the objective item controlled by Jina Purusa. It is clear however that by way of naming convention, Jina Purusa and Krta Purusa are rather associated with their "pure" subjective stances. Hence, in the context of the "A, B notation", it might be better to use the terms "Knower-I" and "Doer-I" instead. Rather than associating these faculties with the purely subjective stances alone, they could be identified by their overall range of influence, that is the (A) resp. (B) control or synthesis phases. The universal faculties or Four Chambers are then defined by what they actually represent, i.e. Energy, Microvita, etc..

Why does microvita cosmology represent "a new line of thinking"?

First of all, these are P.R. Sarkar's own words, in his discourse published as "Microvita and Cosmology". Not only does he say this in a general sense, in the same line he explicitly distances himself from particular key terms in (spiritual) philosophy, and instead introduces new ones, in a new context. In a more general sense, Sarkar does not seem to give the slightest reference to any "prior art", in any of his 41 lectures related to microvita. Finally, Sarkar never uses any essential concepts of philosophy, such as "Prakrti", "Guna's", "Shiva" and "Shakti", etc.. in an explanatory sense, and in fact all, with regard to microvita, nor does he draw any parallels. So, in terms of his own or other prior works, microvita cosmology sure is a new line of thinking.Secondly, there seems to be no concept anywhere near to microvita known in science. So, also scientifically, microvita cosmology appears to be an altogether new line of thinking. Hence, from a scientific viewpoint, it seems to come "out of the blue", and is in that sense context-less, un-evidenced and thus purely axiomatic. In fact, the entire concept seems to thrive on it's inner consistency alone, plus the general authority of its propounder.

However there appears to be a very close resemblance with at least one ancient source, and that's the Sankhya sutra's of Maharshi Kapila, which are commonly considered part of the Veda's. The similarity is most obvious in the sub-wave implications of both. That is, my own sub-wave interpretation of Sarkar's microvita cosmology was the result of my own research in the deep psycho-physiology of the human heart beat, which in turn was greatly enhanced by Sarkar's theory. The sub-wave interpretation of Kapila's work was, and still is, carried out by a now very senoir Indian scholar, G. Srinivasan, who I'm having intensive correspondence with. Srinivasan has authored an impressive 800+ pages of detailed mathematical and other interpretation, or rather unpacking and unfolding, of Kapila's sutra's.Having completely different sources and backgrounds, it was an amazing coincidence that Srinivasan's and my own mathematical descriptions of the sub-wave fabric of creation turned out to be 100% identical. However there's a catch. The reason I currently don't (yet) refer to his work is not out of any lack of courtesy, on the contrary, but because of what appear to be almost insurmountable differences not only in philosophy and didactics, but also on some closely related technicalities. Perhaps that P.R. Sarkar's own comment on Kapila could shed some (ominous..?) light on this difference: "In vainly trying to count the number of fundamental principles in the creation, Sankhya has made its biggest mistake in forgetting to count Parama Purusa. Perhaps he [Maharshi Kapila] did not have sufficient intellect to realize that Parama Purusa is the Supreme Primordial Principle" *). In other words, the reason why Sarkar does not refer to Kapila's sutra's in microvita cosmology, and the (cultural..?) differences I encounter with his contemporary interpretor, could very well have a common ground. It must be mentioned thought, that other maybe than this critical note, Sarkar speaks of Kapila with utmost reference.

* Parthasarathi Krsna and Samkhya Philosophy 2 / 9

Who is the owner of the domain

"Ananda Marga" is the lifestyle based on spiritual cult, founded by Shrii P.R. Sarkar in the mid '50's. Cult in the true sense of the term is not changed or affected by political differences. Microvita theory is a science, giving by P.R. Sarkar in the late '80's. Like cult, science is also not changed or affected by politics. Therefore, instead of saying, belongs to or represents this or that political group, it belongs to and represents Ananda Marga, resp. AMPS. Microvita is the (future) science of a universal society, that is, one based on spiritual cult, rather than on socio-, geo- or other sentiments.

Are you officially affiated to Ananda Marga (AMPS)?

I'm working independently, so the question of officialness or non-officialness does not arise. More important is, that one should not adopt an aura of self-assumed "officialness" in the name of this or that organisation. Not only will it mislead and confound people by creating false leverage, also such a dishonest attitude is detrimental for the actual work to be done. Typically, one would not be capable of making any progress, and as a result endlessly keep reiterating archaic, untested and untestable concepts, cowardly walk away from dispute and create a controversial reputation for the subject under investigation. As far as Ananda Marga, i.e. AMPS is concerned, any truly official, legitimate entity should be broadly supported from the basis, and in writing be endorsed by the President (here: Purodha Pramuka). This is probably not quite unlike in any organisation, simply to prevent misuse of "affiliation". In the field of microvita studies, an official institute has so far not yet been created in AMPS. In case of doubt, just ask for the papers.

Is it true that could be shut down?

I think that's very unlikely and should not be taken serious. Rumours are just rumours and anyway, opposition from mediocrity is as old as the world - as a matter of fact, without any there would be more reason for concern. Important is that critical feedback is well founded, based on physics, mathematics, logic or non-dogmatic interpretation of literary sources, or even axiomatically if the subject happens to be highly abstract. In other words, open-minded, interesting, relevant, creative and progressive. That's for example why I was asked to also emphasize the original arrangement of the cosmology table (see above), which was a fair request, if only for legacy reasons. What we do not need is off the wall exegetic statements and other forms of dogma. For those interested in politics there's no need to involve themselves with a subject such as microvita cosmology - like a magpie with an owl's feathers.

Is microvitum related to the five fundamental factors?

Probably it is. I'm not pursuing such lines of thinking, because the 5FF are a creation of philosophy, not of the universe, and above all, P.R. Sarkar explicitly distanced himself from such concepts while introducing new terms for his new cosmology. I feel we should not convenience ourselves with explaining something we don't understand, with something we think we understand, but also don't. The 5FF seem easy to comprehend, as they are parallel to the tangible elements, but that's just a little too easy.

Parts of your work seem to have similarities with Sacred Geometry, is that correct?

Since ancient times people have been intuiting and studying archetypal shapes of creation. There is a certain mystical appeal to it. The way how it is or was being dealt with in the "New Age" - computer - internet era is not necessarily always as "sacred" as the geometry itself. However there are also authentic, relatively contemporary inspirational sources such as Walter Russell, Gordon Plummer, or Anne Griswold Tyng, to name a few. Also Victor Schauberger deserves mentioning, allthough this is not exactly sacred geometry. But also there has been a lot of "manual curve-fitting", distortion and plagiarism. In concepts such as the geometric origin of color and of sound, sacred geometry is certainly a great inspirational factor, but technically there is no true prior art. The same is true for the geometrization (i.e. as a result of the bifurcation) of the "Knower-I" and "Doer-I" subwave templates of P.R. Sarkar's new cosmological approach. Sarkar's work however might give a somewhat more scientific touch to sacred geometry, and thus help create renewed interest.

You don't seem to refer to other microvita research or researchers, why is that?

This is true. This is not a matter of principle, but of practicality. Currently there is no research in this specific area I'm aware of which is useful for, or supportive of my work. The purpose of is also not to critisize the work of others. Instead, here is a 16 points checklist so that everyone can do some evaluation themselves:

  • Does a thesis have the potential to truly shine some light on, and unpack, all nooks and corners of Sarkar's new cosmology?
  • Does it attempt to be explanatory without resorting to "old" philosophical terms and concepts which were - sometimes explicitly - abandoned by Sarkar?
  • Does it provide true synthesis, rather than merely making an inventory or re-categorizing in a bookkeeping style?
  • Does it emphasize intuitional as well as lab research?
  • Does it provide a non-dualistic, or rather non-dual approach and solution?
  • Does it nevertheless clearly and transparantly show how microvita cosmology relates to the personal stance?
  • Does it provide a consistent and universal causal framework?
  • Does it provide verifiable correlations to relevant ancient sources resp. modern interpretations of those?
  • Does it include mathematical clues or descriptions, or provide models which can be mathematically described?
  • Does it have the potential for practical applications, for example by relating to quantum physics?
  • Does it support existing practical applications already?
  • Does it provide potentially useful explanations for principles not yet understood in physics?
  • Does it provide measurable (i.e. verifiable and falsifiable) results?
  • Does it have the potential to predict effects for example in physics or bio-psychology?
  • Does it provide a (potentially) useful explanation of what microvita are?
  • Does it show a line of steady progress through the years which is still going on?

Can microvita theory be explained in simple terms, so that everybody can easily understand it?s

Something can easily be understood by everybody, if everybody else already understands it. That's the famous 100th. monkey effect. Another alley is, some people are good at making their audience THINK they have understood something. These are entertainers, not educators. That's why there are universities to this very day - they are not exactly made useless by entertainment. Microvita science is not just "something to be understood" - it's a paradigmshift, a "new line of thinking". This requires not an objective, but a subjective approach - a fundamental change in how we think about ourselves and our place in the universe. That takes time, like famous examples in history have shown so clearly. And, that's what makes it worthwhile.

Is the "Jina Purusa" or Knowing Faculty of microvita theory, the same as Paramashiiva in philosophy?

In philosophy, Paramashiiva (Supreme Cognitive Faculty) and Purusottama (Cosmic Nucleus) are considered one and the same. In philosophy, rather than differentiating between the two, their cosmic play or "Liila" works out in the form of "crudification" as a result of the influence of Prakrti. This approach implies the personal stance, and hence it is at least in part a dualistic one. In microvita theory, similar concepts can be discerned, but are in this context not identified as the Entities of philosophy. Also, their creative process is not based on "crudification" but on "bifurcation", transparantly reveiling their reciprocity rather than creating a mysterious "Liila". Obviously because of this very different context, P.R. Sarkar never used any terms from philosophy, and instead introduced new ones. If one insists on comparison, it might be argued that Jina Purusa resp. Krta Purusa are the manifestation of Paramashiiva, resp. Purusottama, "on the silver lining between matter and abstract", whereas the latter, philosophical terms, involve both matter and abstract, however in a rather unspecific way. However it might be better not to indulge in such comparisons too much, prior to having deeply studied microvita cosmology in its own right.

Is Brahma Cakra the same as, or different from The Cycle of Creation?

As a field of research, this is not a microvita related topic. In class, the two are often confused, allthough they are explicitly described by P.R. Sarkar in very different ways. Both are types of cosmic or creational cycles, one (Brahma Cakra) moving around the Cosmic Nucleus, and the other moving through it. In philosophy, their correlation is not easy to understand. In microvita cosmology, the original inferences can be modelled as having one component that cycles a nucleus orbitally, and one that cycles it toroidally, whereas their equilibrium can be defined in terms of microvita and energy. The relation between this composite original inference, and the "normal" wave, propagating in time and space (the "tanmatra" of philosophy), perceived by the biological mind, is considered to be a-causal or mystical. A lot of research needs to be done, but at least different working models have been proposed, some of them with for example numerical proof or other testible applications.

Are your heart and brain diagnostic and biofeedback applications based on P.R. Sarkar's microvita theory, and why are you not referring to them on this website?

Firstly, these are psycho-physiological applications based on the principle of Internal Coherence. This term was originally coined in a journal paper by Institute of Heartmath (IHM), referring to empirical evidence, but yet without a theoretical basis. The heart & brain applications were developed independently but in retrospect they turned out to perfectly match the findings of IHM, as well as P.R. Sarkar's subwave-based explanation of microvita cosmology. In other words, conceptually, these practical applications are based on microvita theory as well as on IHM research, but successively they are not. Secondly, these are commercial applications. The reason not to display them* on seems quite self-evident. It is definitely NOT because certain people have been complaining about "commercialization" of P.R. Sarkar's microvita theory. As just shown, this is not true to begin with. And if it were, there'd be nothing wrong with it - let's hope that we will see maximum utilisation of Sarkar's theory in future. And last but not least, isn't self-supported research in many ways preferrable above research funded from tax-payer's money?
* Additional note (feb. 07, 2015) - I briefly referred to the ECG / EEG applications in response to a posting of Dr. H.J. Rudolph concerning a possible connection between individual brain waves and microvita.

Is microvita theory "evidence based" or will it ever be?

Evidence requires context. Therefore, a paradigmshift in concept is also a paradigmshift in context (worldview, self-perception, historical, cultural, sociological, etc..). Some of the most notable paradigmshifts in history were: Heliocentrism (Galileo), Gravitation (Newton), Evolution of Species (Darwin), Quantumphysics (Planck, Einstein and others), and Relativity (Einstein). With a little bit of fantasy they can be correlated to the cakra's. Likewise, microvita science could represent such a paradigmshift. Hence, evidence for microvita might typically be relevant and accepted only within a changed or changing context. Something along the line as we see for example with homeopathy. Searching for "too hard" evidence for a subtle principle inside the existing paradigm may destroy evidence which is actually valid inside the new paradigm. An actual example of evidence possibly related to microvita cosmology is the geometric origin of color. Intuitional people usually very well understand the point of it, and not the technicality. With intellectual people it's just the way around. A paradigmshift requires both, and does so on a more or less collective basis. This may be the greatest challenge for the upcoming generations of microvita scientists, not only to make new and authentic discoveries in the "mental lab", but to translate them into a curriculum which can help improve our scientific scope and standards, and help develop a whole new field of applications.

Does microvita theory relate to quantum physics?

Quantum physics is well understood, but certain key concepts were never solved since it's very inception, about a century ago. There is a gap in understanding fundamental causes. With microvita theory it is just vice-versa: it could potentially solve a whole range of fundamental problems in physics, but we're just in the very early stages of discovery. On a more technical note, there is some primordial evidence that seems to point at an intimate relation between intrinsic spin, and the way how microvita steer subtle energy into the physical creation. This might help shed a completely new light on fundamental issues such as Pauli exclusion and the inner symmetry of the Dirac spinor, and hence, on the "Aufbau principle" of atoms. But also other exotic effects and correlations are being investigated.

... and what about Relativity?

Our understanding of gravity has stepwise evolved over an extended period of time. Initially, there was no such concept as "force" at all. Objects simply fell to the ground. In the 17th. century, Isaac Newton not only conceived of gravity as a force, but was also able to describe it mathematically, ánd was so brilliant to apply it to the movement of the planets. It was an intuitional and intellectual tour the force of unimaginable proportion. Centuries later, in the early 20th. centrury, Albert Einstein formulated his theory of General Relativity, and one very important consequence of it was a completely new understanding of gravity. No longer was it a force, but it was a deformation or "warp" or compression of space itself, under the influence of a large mass, for example a planet. Objects were no longer accelerated by a force, but simply followed a natural path through already curved space ("geodesic"). Again, this was revolutionary. Today, physicists are beginning to signal that Einstein never explained how mass "informs" space to be curved. There is a gap in the causality. Further, around the 1960's, evidence was found for so-called "dark matter", which effectively means the existence of gravitational fields in space unaccounted for by the presence of actual mass. Hence, a new paradigm in cosmology could be the formulating of a formal cause of gravity, unrelated to physical matter alltogether. Also here, P.R. Sarkar's microvita cosmology could prove extremely helpful, at least conceptually, as a working model of steering energy intelligently into physical creation - this time not as particle spin, but on the grandest scale. This way, there would no longer be any sense of discontinuity in the creation of the universe - all is the expression of one single creational paradigm.

Is it true that you're not taking part in Facebook discussions related to microvita theory, and why?

It's way too early for microvita science to be liked or not liked.

> Added Jan. 2017:

Study: Facebook can actually make us more narrow-minded

"Research shows online communities reinforce old ideas, exclude outside ones"

"You and all of your friends are all sharing the same stuff, even if it's bunk, because you think
alike and your tightly-defined exchange of ideas doesn't allow for anything new or challenging to flow in".

Advise: "Do your own fact-checking -- and soul-searching -- before you share".



Back to   email the editor