Life: the cornerstone of all creation

From the different ways of understanding Brahma Cakra, which all have their legitimacy, we might conclude that the perceptual, gross-physical interpretation not surprisingly shows the most obvious parallels with the actual world. But at the same time it does not even remotely reveal the intricacies of creation as, philosophically at least, Brahma Cakra is infinitely more subtle than that. At the same time however, the subtler(Empirical, conceptual and spiritual) explanations leave empirical phenomena grossly unexplained.

In purely philosophical terms there is no reason for controversy. Namely, all different explanations of Brahma Cakra (which are currently circulating, so to say...) share one common factor: they are all in essence but different ways, or different levels, of describing the creation of life. Again, it should be reminded that not only biological organisms, but also celestial bodies and even atoms are considered “alive”. In that sense, the empirical explanation in terms of Fundamental Factors and ectoplasm is also the most effective, and this is Ba’ba’s way how he gave Brahma Cakra. The others are interpretations, and although certainly not irrational, they are either simplifications or abstractions. So in this viewpoint, Brahma Cakra as a whole is considered one living entity.

Now that we cleared up the various popular viewpoints on Brahma Cakra, with the subject and purpose of this article in mind, we have arrived at the question if Brahma Cakra could contribute to a truly scientific model of creation. Brahma Cakra is part of Ananda Sutram, the essential philosophy of Ananda Marga. This might at one point have given rise to what could be conveniently phrased as follows: Is Brahma Cakra to be considered the “Standard Model” of Creation at all times?

Of course this refers to the “Standard Model” of particle physics. Immediately follows the far more important question: can it be that Brahma Cakra would therefore facilitate, or even justify a “Modus Ponens” approach of creation science? In other words, should it be so that each and every theory, thesis, or even physical experiment must and should be evaluated as per the measuring stick of Brahma Cakra? Rather than searching for an answer, let’s look at what Ba’ba’ says (quote) in a discourse on June 10, 1989 in Calcutta.

“This is a new line of thinking, a new philosophical approach. Here, ‘knower I’ or ‘doer I’ are not necessarily the mahat, aham or citta of philosophy. It is a new school of philosophical thought, it has no connection with mahat, aham or citta..”

No connection with mahat, aham or citta? This means, it can have no connection to Brahma Cakra! It is very clear that Ba’ba’ here presents an altogether new and different approach, not like anything seen before. This new approach He gave in the discourse on Microvita and Cosmology, which will further be referred to as Microvita cosmology. As it is a cosmology including, and in a way even based upon microvita, it is verily a cosmology of a living Universe. And here lies a fundamental difference with Brahma Cakra: whereas in Brahma Cakra, life as the cornerstone of all creation is implicit, in microvita cosmology it is fully explicit. It is the starting point of everything.