When one deals with an ancient cultural entity like Hinduism, having a vast metaphysical literature – as vast as the Pacific Ocean – then there certainly is an urgent need for a tall lighthouse, a tangible guideline, that can serve as a navigational aid for curious readers who venture into Vedic literature (in search of truth and meaning) in the vast ocean of Hindu theological and metaphysical literature — and their innumerable interpretations.
No Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit or Ardha Magadhi scripture, unfortunately, provides us with a thumb-rule or a specific guideline on how to choose the best plausible interpretation. Fortunately, a 14th-century English Franciscan friar, William of Ockham, does give us a useful thumb-rule that can always come in handy in situations where we face innumerable points of view, often diverse, not knowing which one to choose. This Principle of Parsimony or Occam’s razor, as it is popularly called, is a simple problem-solving principle that says that the simplest explanation for something is typically the most likely one.
Occam’s razor simply says: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, which translates as “Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”. This means that when faced with multiple competing explanations for the same phenomenon, the one that is the least complex is probably the most likely one. For example, a doctor is more likely to assume a patient’s blocked nose is due to a common cold rather than a rare autoimmune disorder, because the common cold is the simpler, more common explanation.
Occam’s razor is just a guideline or a heuristic, not a law. It does not guarantee that the simplest answer is always correct, but it does prove to be a useful tool because when faced with multiple possible explanations the most economical one — the one that requires the fewest assumptions — is most likely to be correct.
To elucidate my point, I will take an example of how, and why, the same vast stock of Vedantic literature — the Upanishads, the Gita, Brahmasutra etc. — have led, in last 1200 years, four eminent gurus to reach different conclusions.
Adi Shankara (8th c. CE), progenitor of the Advaita or the monistic school felt that there is only one eternal entity, the Brahman and that the individual soul (Atma) is identical to the supreme reality (Brahman)
.
Madhvacharya (1238–1317 CE), the proponent of Dvaitavada (dualism), asserts that there are two eternal and fundamental entities — God (Vishnu or Narayana) and the individual soul (Atman).
Dayanand Saraswati (1824–1883) insisted on three eternal entities and called his system Traitavad. His three eternal entities are God, the individual soul (Jiva), and the nature (Prakriti).
Thus, we have three different conclusions or perceptions based on the same vast stock of Vedantic literature. Doesn’t it call for some serious thinking on the subject!
Next : Word’s worth
0 Comments