[Advaita-l] Shankara's Razor

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

I was reading the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashya and came across a
portion in Akshara Brahmanam where Shankara uses the argument that one
should not make more assumptions than what is required to explain a
particular phenomenon - in this case the connection between vaidika karma
and its phala.  He objects to the poorva mimasakas postulation of apurva by
giving an argument कल्पनाधिक्याच्च (having more assumptions than
necessary).

This is the same as what is more popularly known as Occam's Razor. Occam's
Razor advocates for choosing the explanation that requires the fewest
assumptions or entities to explain a given phenomenon. It suggests that
when faced with multiple explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest
explanation is usually the best.

So should we call this principle as Shankara's razor as this is named after
the 14th-century philosopher William of Ockham (or Occam) who came after
Shankara. Or may be this is already a well established principle in mimAmsa
shastra?

I am giving the below the relevant Bhashya passages and a translation.


एतस्य वा अक्षरस्य प्रशासने गार्गि ददतो मनुष्याः प्रशंसन्ति  ॥ बृ.उप ३.३.९ ॥

किञ्च ददतः हिरण्यादीन्प्रयच्छतः आत्मपीडां कुर्वतोऽपि प्रमाणज्ञा अपि
मनुष्याः प्रशंसन्ति ; तत्र यच्च दीयते, ये च ददति, ये च प्रतिगृह्णन्ति,
तेषामिहैव समागमो विलयश्च अन्वक्षो दृश्यते ; अदृष्टस्तु परः समागमः ; तथापि
मनुष्या ददतां दानफलेन संयोगं पश्यन्तः प्रमाणज्ञतया प्रशंसन्ति ; तच्च,
कर्मफलेन संयोजयितरि कर्तुः — कर्मफलविभागज्ञे प्रशास्तरि असति, न स्यात् ,
दानक्रियायाः प्रत्यक्षविनाशित्वात् ; तस्मादस्ति दानकर्तॄणां फलेन संयोजयिता
। अपूर्वमिति चेत् , न, तत्सद्भावे प्रमाणानुपपत्तेः । प्रशास्तुरपीति चेत् ,
न, आगमतात्पर्यस्य सिद्धत्वात् ; अवोचाम हि आगमस्य वस्तुपरत्वम् । किञ्चान्यत्
— अपूर्वकल्पनायां च अर्थापत्तेः क्षयः, अन्यथैवोपपत्तेः, सेवाफलस्य
सेव्यात्प्राप्तिदर्शनात् ; सेवायाश्च क्रियात्वात् तत्सामान्याच्च
यागदानहोमादीनां सेव्यात् ईश्वरादेः फलप्राप्तिरुपपद्यते ।
दृष्टक्रियाधर्मसामर्थ्यमपरित्यज्यैव फलप्राप्तिकल्पनोपपत्तौ
दृष्टक्रियाधर्मसामर्थ्यपरित्यागो न न्याय्यः । कल्पनाधिक्याच्च — ईश्वरः
कल्प्यः, अपूर्वं वा ; तत्र क्रियायाश्च स्वभावः सेव्यात्फलप्राप्तिः दृष्टा,
न त्वपूर्वात् ; न च अपूर्वं दृष्टम् , तत्र अपूर्वमदृष्टं कल्पयितव्यम् ,
तस्य च फलदातृत्वे सामर्थ्यम् , सामर्थ्ये च सति दानं च अभ्यधिकमिति ; इह तु
ईश्वरस्य सेव्यस्य सद्भावमात्रं कल्प्यम् , न तु फलदानसामर्थ्यं दातृत्वं च,
सेव्यात्फलप्राप्तिदर्शनात् । अनुमानं च दर्शितम् — ‘द्यावापृथिव्यौ विधृते
तिष्ठतः’ इत्यादि ।

Further even wise men (pramANajna) praise those that give Gold etc. even
though it is a personal loss to the giver. That which is given, the giver
and the receiver - their coming together and dispersing, is seen in front
of our eyes in this very life. But the connection between the giver and the
fruits of giving is not seen directly (adrshtah). Still the wise people who
see the connection between the people who give and the fruits of their
giving, praise the giver as it is evident to them. This would not be
possible if there was no ruler (prashAsta) who, knowing the various actions
and their results, brings about the union of the giver and the results of
his giving, for the act of giving ends in front of our eyes. Therefore
there must be someone who connects the giver with the results of their
giving. If it is said that 'Apurva' itself (the unseen result of action)
can do this - No. For there is no means to know the existence of Apurva. If
it is said that the same applies to the ruler (praShAsta) also - No. As he
is known to exist from the Shrutis. We have already said that the shrutis
reveal the existing reality.

Besides, the presumption (arthApatti) by which the Apurva is postulated,
does not hold as the results of action can be otherwise accounted for. We
observe that the reward of service is obtained from the person served; and
as service is an act and sacrifices, gifts, offering oblations in the fire,
etc., are just as much acts, it stands to reason that the reward for their
performance should come from those in whose honour they are performed, viz.
Isvara and so forth. Since we can explain the obtaining of rewards without
sacrificing the directly observed inherent power of acts, it is improper to
sacrifice that power. Moreover, it involves unnecessary assumptions
(kalpanAdhikyam). We must assume either Isvara or the apurva. Now we
observe that it is the very nature of an act of service that it is rewarded
by the person served, not by the apurva; and no one has ever actually
experienced this apurva. So (in your view) we have to assume that the
apurva, which nobody has ever observed, exists; that it has the power to
confer rewards; and that having this power, it does in addition confer
them. On our side, however, we have to assume only the existence of the
person served, viz. Isvara, but neither His power to confer rewards nor His
exercise of it, for we actually observe that the person served rewards the
service. The grounds for inferring His existence have already been shown in
the text: ‘Heaven and earth maintain their positions,’ etc.

with love and prayers,
Jaishankar