This is the tenth chapter of the book „Viveka – the Voice of Inner Guru.“

The whole book will be tokenized as NFTs on Mirror and, as such, published in 20 articles (20 chapters of the book: The Illusion; India, oh India!; The Accurate description of the Reality; The Crown Jewel; Dead Guru; Living student; Who you?; Leaving the room; The Weakness of the Mind; The Archimedean Point; Three Powers of Maya; Viveka - the Sword of Truth; The Cave of the Mind; Language Can Save Us; Searching for Lakshana; Nine Golden Rules of Viveka; Purification Exercises; What to do with all this?; Dealing with Fear; Ekam Evadvityam: Living without a Center).

Chapter Ten: The Archimedean Point

tanmanaḥśodhanaṃ kāryaṃ prayatnena mumukṣuṇā |
viśuddhe sati caitasminmuktiḥ karaphalāyate ||

Therefore, the mind must be diligently purified by those who earnestly seek liberation.
When the mind is purified, liberation is as easy to access as a fruit in the palm of one’s hand.

Vivekachudamani 181

„If I would just have a firm-resting place, I could dislodge the world from its axis.“ Archimedes thought that if he could place a lever at enough distance, he could move the Earth with minimal effort. Theoretically, yes, providing that he could find a firm ground somewhere far away in space and the Earth turns immovable, and gravity would be something else than what it is. So, in practice, no, Archimedes could not do such a thing. But, his claim became famous not only among teachers and students of mechanics but among philosophers, politicians, and ordinary people. As fate wanted it, the phrase „archimedean point“ became synonymous with a neutral standpoint or common ground. In a more sophisticated sense, it symbolizes a search for an action or a skill with which we can achieve incredible results almost effortlessly.

In a world of philosophy, the archimedean point represents a starting point, something we rely upon, the beginning, and maybe the end –alfa and omega. It is something you don't question or doubt. Or, a second version, it is something you can not question or doubt. As a prospective student of viveka, you must understand the difference between those two statements.

„Something you don't doubt“, can be something you believe in. It can be, for example, the existence of God. If you are a believer, that can be your „archimedean point“. Of course, you can take something else, like dogmatic scientists do – a belief in an independent existence of material, outside world. That is their starting point. As for western philosophers... Kant, for example, builds his philosophy around the “inner idea of freedom which rests there as a secure basis through the unshakeable moral law.” Fichte, too, invokes the idea of „freedom of the mind“ as a basis for everything else. The archimedean point can be literary anything if the philosopher has a plausible argument for it. For Richard Smith (1967), the archimedean point is „the existence of the transcendental ego,“etc.

So much for „something we don't doubt“. What about „something we can not doubt“?

That is a different story altogether. While „something we don't doubt“represents an idea, „something we can not doubt“ includes in itself a procedure. In that case, an archimedean point is not a thing or an idea, not even a concept. Nevertheless, it can be all that, only after a proper procedure is applied. Take, for example, the existence of God as a firm ground for starting the exploration of life. Can you doubt it? Of course. Every atheist or agnostic in this world can challenge that belief. It is not a question of who is right and who is wrong; it is a question of the possibility of a challenge. If that possibility exists, the existence of God can not be an archimedean point under the „we can not doubt“ principle.

I hope you remember that in the previous chapter, I wrote that Shankara was a greater scientist than scientists themselves. The reason for such a statement is in the archimedean point of viveka – and that is „we can not doubt“. Such an approach enables the mind to think without construction, while „something we don't doubt“ makes it construction-filled, even if such a construction, or a belief, would be true or justified. For example, if our archimedean point would be the existence of God, even if that turns out to be accurate, as per viveka, that would be ignorance. The same is valid in the case of science. If the archimedean point is the independent existence of the material universe, even if that turns out to be accurate, it is avidya, ignorance, not vidya, knowledge.

Bear with me, please. I still stand by the pronouncement of the simplicity of viveka. However, since our mind is full of habits (patterns), breaking those patterns sometimes looks like a complicated task. While studying viveka, you'll often come across such moments and a feeling that you don't understand anything. Faced with its mistakes, the mind will slow down or even stop working for a moment. You'll experience that as a hazy feeling of cognitive dissonance. That feeling is not exclusive to viveka, but viveka has an awkward ability to confront you with it more often.

Maybe you'll need to re-read some sentences or paragraphs more than once. That is usual and expected. I will be worried if that doesn't happen at least a dozen times in an hour of reading this book. Nevertheless, I am doing all in my power to make this introduction to viveka fun and exciting so that you can deal with haziness more efficiently.

The process of accepting the simplicity and direct understanding of principles of viveka, Shankara attributes to the „purification of the mind“. Vivekachudamani 181 says: „Therefore, the mind must be diligently purified by those who earnestly seek liberation. When the mind is purified, liberation is as easy to access as a fruit in the palm of one’s hand.“ The purified mind sees directly into the meaning of ideas (or words); it does not subtract, nor add anything. As such, it is conception and construction-free. By itself, the situation of a purified mind is not necessarily the situation of liberation. However, access to liberation is granted and natural as enjoyment in the fruit already in your hand.

In the following chapters about Maya, I'll explain the difference between the terms „true“ and „accurate“. I hope that will add to the understanding of viveka's archimedean point being in a construction-free procedure and not in a construction-filled assumption.

Let's continue analyzing the „we can not doubt“ approach on which viveka insists.

What does it mean? How can we apply it, and what will we achieve when we find the thing, idea, or whatever it is we can not doubt nor challenge?

We'll find knowledge. We'll discover the reality. We'll see what is true and what is false. We'll discern between the truth and the illusion. And that is our primary goal.

The method... well, I told you that viveka is just common sense, an honest mind inquiry. There is nothing to do except look with child-like eyes and attitude. What you see, you tell. Don't imagine; don't accept presumptions; don't rely upon „everyone knows that“; don't start your answers with „if that is so, then...“ (you can do that later when you have your first viveka answer, but not in the beginning); don't quote scholarly books or people.

The question is: „What do you know for sure, without any possible doubt?“ If you answer that question, you'll find your archimedean point. From that place – and only from that place – you could proudly continue as all real scientists did before you. By „scientists“, I mean people who didn't compromise with the truth, like Shankara and other great masters of knowledge.

Maybe it would be wise for you to make your first insecure viveka steps by yourself. That means you could put aside this book and devote some of your time to finding what you know without a doubt. I recommend such action. Come back sometime later and continue to read.

***

If you accepted my suggestion, you just did what René Descartes was doing for most of his life. I don't know what's your thinking about sure knowledge, without the possibility of a doubt, but you know Descartes's answer, don't you?

Cogito, ergo sum – that is how he put it in Latin. Of course, the dictum „I think; therefore I am“ was later confronted with some criticism, but it is a fine example of an honest inquiry without any prejudices. Descartes wanted to start from a blank slate, which was possible only by finding something he could not doubt. He discovered his archimedean point in the fact of his own existence. I hope you will not dismiss his conclusion lightly, even if it turns out to be mistaken. He started by doubting everything he previously knew, and such bravery is rare. It is not easy to peel layer after layer of accumulated knowledge (vigjnanmayakosha) until you are left with one answer – one thing you know for sure.

Since I know from personal experience how painful it is to face your own demons of knowledge, I can imagine Descartes awake during long nights, asking questions and rejecting answers, again and again, until he miserably admitted that he could rely upon that only thing and nothing else. Looking backward and thinking about his argument for such a conclusion, it all looks smooth and logical. You may read his Cogito, ergo sum and say „I agree“ or „I disagree“. But, that will not do justice to his efforts. The truth is not hidden in your agreement or disagreement; it is in seeing, clearly, and undoubtedly that he is right or that he isn't right. Can you do that? Can you disprove or prove it using a purified mind and the same method he used during many years of inquiry?

I suppose not many of my readers will say that they can. I further assume that many will disagree because they don't believe in the power of the mind (which is utterly irrelevant because the construction-filed presumption is worth nothing). However, at the same time, I can doubt my own assumptions because there is also a possibility that many readers will say that they can prove or disprove Descartes's dictum. Many actually believe in the power of a purified mind. Do you see it? I can express my opinions and assumptions as often as I wish, but from the viveka standpoint, it is all empty air. Nothing. Arguments and the flow of thinking must be such that, at any given moment, no doubt can be expressed whatsoever. That's the first principle of viveka thinking – its archimedean point.

Let's see what Descartes has done. He can not doubt his own existence because to say that he doesn't exist would be a contradiction in terms: someone must make that statement, which means that someone exists. We can doubt our body, senses, and environment (a brain in a vat), but we can not deny our existence. Even if some evil demon deceives us about everything else, that means there is someone – us, me, I – who is deceived.

But that's only the first part. How does Descartes know about his existence? He is a thinking subject. No other part of him can make such a statement – only the part that thinks. So, in a way, Descartes confirms the central position of manomayakosha.

What do you say? Does Descartes's answer represent the result of proper viveka thinking (no doubt whatsoever)?

I'll help you. It does not.

René Descartes came a long way, but somehow he missed to put a question mark over the basic level of illusion – over the existence of I. Adi Shankara went further; advaita went further, applying the first principle of viveka to everything. The first principle says that if you can doubt anything, that is not to be accepted as knowledge. Any question mark, any scenario in which the question mark could be true, even if the probability is negligible, renders the statement unacceptable.

What does that look like in practice?

Descartes came to the existence of I as a last resort he can not doubt. But, he should at least try to imagine the different scenarios. We'll do that now for him.

Can we think about the scenarios in which the existence of the I is an illusion, a lie? Of course, we can. For example, let's suppose there is one consciousness, and Descartes (and all of us) seems to have a separate appearance. However, that's an illusion. Such a proposition may sound crazy, given that we all experience the I-ness as a fact. But it is possible, isn't it? We can think about and discuss such a possibility. The fact that we can do it puts a question over the „I think; therefore I am“.

Furthermore, he made a second viveka mistake. His argument about manomayakosha (thinking subject) as the one making the statement of existence can be challenged. Like this: maybe Descartes doesn't think at all. Perhaps his brain, or mind, is just an antenna for receiving thoughts. In that scenario (probable or improbable, science fiction, or a fantasy, no matter what, it is a scenario we can think of), his conclusion is based on a belief – that he thinks, while thoughts actually come from somewhere else. It is perhaps a „justified belief“, but that's not good enough for viveka. Again, due to that possibility, „Cogito, ergo sum“ cannot be accepted as a sure knowledge.

Got it? If necessary, reread the previous paragraphs.

What is sure knowledge, then? Descartes came very close, but he stumbled on the last steps. Here is the correct and true viveka answer, the one you can not doubt: CONSCIOUSNESS EXISTS.

Think about it, turn it as you like, chew it, digest it, and do what you want, but you can not doubt that.

Right?

Let's go a little bit further.

There is consciousness. So much we know for sure. But, we know one more thing for sure: thoughts exist in that consciousness. That is another true viveka statement made by a purified mind.

So, the application of the construction-free archimedean point of viveka in the form of „that what we can not doubt“, brought us to the construction-filled but nevertheless true archimedean points (sure knowledge) about the existence of consciousness, mind, and thoughts (in that order). From that point on, we can go in different directions. One of them I followed in the book „The Elimination of Karma Factor“ – the search for the main characteristic of consciousness, which ended in the idea of freedom and understanding why is the expression moksha or liberation much better description of the goal than the expression enlightenment.

Here, we’ll follow a slightly different path. The purpose is not to do it completely and thoroughly, but just enough for you to catch the essence.

We can be sure in the existence of the mind and thoughts—nothing else. Here are some of the striking consequences of such a revelation.

The perceptual consensus, a mistaken argument of scientific dogma, leads us to the unprovable conclusion that something exists outside the consciousness. That is unacceptable. On the other hand, one step further in the application of the archimedean point of viveka tells us that we are sure about the existence of thoughts, not about what those thoughts are about. For example, we are sure about the existence of thought about the car, and not about the existence of a car! Similarly, we are sure about the existence of thought about the other person, not the other person's existence.

Take your time and let this soak in.

We can be sure about the ideas and thoughts, but not what those ideas supposedly represent. Since viveka can not accept assumptions, it deals with ideas, not with questionable things those ideas are about. Echoing Plato, we may say that the ideas are real, and things are illusory.

Ideas can be simple, but usually, they are not. Our mind creates construction, connects different meanings, and creates the shortcuts between the implications. Later on, we'll talk about communication and language based on mental constructions. Somewhere inside those constructions, a mistake is hidden, a mistake of the mind. To correct it, viveka instructs us to analyze and deconstruct the constructions, using the first and most crucial archimedean point: we don't' accept as true anything that we can challenge and doubt even in the slightest degree.

It is a simple thing but not the easiest thing to do. The mind will fight against it. It will fight fiercely. The evil demon who deceives us, or much more delicate but not less dangerous, Maya, the Lady of the Illusion, will do everything and anything to stop us from seeing the truth, thus protecting its existence.

On the other hand, the existence of the mind as a part of consciousness is sure knowledge, an actual reality, not just a justified belief. So, the mind is for sure a piece of true reality, but somehow, under the enchantment of an „evil demon“, Maya, it creates an illusion.

Let's see how Maya does that.

***

Next Chapter: Three Powers of Maya