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 

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste

Today I was reading the Bhashya of Brahmasutra 1.3.28 (देवताधिकरणम्) where Shankara is refuting the sphotavaada and I noticed one more instance of Shankara using the principle of Occam's Razor. The bhashya to this sutra is amazing in that it explains why words have to precede any creation and how a word (शब्दः) is comprehended by the utterance of individual alphabets (वर्णाः) and the meaning is cognized.

In this context while refuting sphota he says

तद्वरं वर्णव्यक्तिष्वेव परोपाधिको भेदप्रत्ययः, स्वरूपनिमित्तं च प्रत्यभिज्ञानम् — इति कल्पनालाघवम् ।
 
It is better to consider that the apprehension of difference in the individual letters themselves is conditioned by external factors while the recognition is due to the intrinsic nature of the letters - thus there is lightness/economy of assumption.
 
Here Shankara uses Kalapanaalaaghavam - (simplest explanation/assumption that fits the facts) as the best way to explain things. This is another example of the principle of Occam's Razor being used in Shankara Bhashya.
 
Further in the same bhashya he says
 
वर्णेभ्यश्चार्थप्रतीतेः सम्भवात् स्फोटकल्पनानर्थिका ।
 
Since the cognition of meaning is possible from the letters, the assumption of sphota is unnecessary/meaningless.
 
and
 
वर्णाश्चेमे क्रमेण गृह्यमाणाः स्फोटं व्यञ्जयन्ति स स्फोटोऽर्थं व्यनक्तीति गरीयसी कल्पना स्यात् ॥
 
That the letters apprehended in a definite order are said to manifest the sphoṭa, and the sphoṭa in its turn is said to manifest the sense is a complicated assumption.
 
https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/BS/devanagari#BS_C01_S03_A026

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

[Suresh Sharma]

Namaste,

What a synchrony for me - I was having a discussion about a passage in Tattriya Vartika with chatgpt around  प्रत्यवाय (1.19/20) and then came across your message.

ChatGPT excerpt:

This discussion is another example of something you've noticed repeatedly in Śaṅkara and Suresvara:

They are extremely reluctant to posit new ontological entities unless absolutely necessary.

Here, Suresvara could have accepted:

"Omission produces a new invisible entity called pratyavāya."

Instead, he says (in effect):

"No. The language is secondary (lakṣaṇā). There is no literal 'action' in omission. What actually happens is that previously accumulated karma gains scope to produce its result."

That style of reasoning—preferring semantic analysis and economy of ontology over multiplying causal mechanisms—is characteristic of early Advaita and one of the reasons many readers find it philosophically compelling.

- Suresh Sharma