Moral luck and gyanodaya
I
I think that the multiple routes that exist in the Indian culture and those that individuals follow are on par with each other. From within any one of these, the other routes appear as moments. However, this does not privilege any one route above the other.
If one were to suggest, say, that the Puranic stories are simplifications of the Upanishadic insights then one has to endorse a claim of the following sort. What makes some sets of sentences into a simplification of other sets of sentences is that the former leaves out nuances, qualifications, conditionalities, and so on of the latter. That is to say, the simplification is less true (or more conditionally true) than the complex version. In this way we would get a hierarchy of statements (from complex to the simple), where each succeeding simplification is less true than the predecessor. Only the statement at the apex of such a pyramid would be the truest of the lot. Then, we would have but one set of true statements. Relative to this set, all other statements would be false.
In such a case, there would be no plurality of traditions. There would be but one ‘true’ path; all other paths would not lead us to the same goal as the true one does. Not only that. Under such a construction, enlightenment would not be something that all human beings could strive for and achieve; only ‘some’ (those who are able to understand the Upanishadic claims) could do so. Consequently, one has to add a rider: only some people (endowed only in one particular way) could find happiness (eudaimonia, enlightenment).
The strength of the Indian traditions lies, amongst other things, in their unconditional claim: all human beings can find happiness. The differences between human beings (no matter whether this difference is biological, sociological, psychological in nature) matter only when it comes to the choice of the path best suited for them. If this statement is true, then the Puranic stories cannot be, under any interpretation of the word, simplifications of more complex claims.
II
I cannot quite figure out whether we are talking about different things or expressing differing points of view or simply using different words. I am talking about two contrast sets: ‘simplification’ and ‘complexity’, whereas you seem to talk about ‘simplicity’ and ‘complication’ (also at times using ‘complex’ as a synonym for ‘complicated’). You are right that simplification and complexity apply to descriptions; that is why I spoke of both of them in terms of ‘sets of sentences’ (in some language or another). Let me explain what I mean.
If there is a ‘simple’ and a ‘complicated’ explanation available to me, and they are alternatives in the sense that they do more or less the same job in explaining what needs to be explained, then I would prefer a simple to a complicated explanation. Here, the difference between these two explanations resides in the fact that the complicated explanation uses more concepts than the simple one does but both do the same job. (Let us leave aside why I choose a simple explanation; the reasons have to do with my philosophical preferences.)
In the case of a ‘simplified’ and a ‘complex’ explanation, the situation is different. The simplified set of statements (mostly) makes use of non-technical vocabulary to get across the point of a complex explanation. The simplification leaves aside qualifications, presuppositions, conditions, etc. which are all required for the explanation to really explain some phenomenon or another. (Elegantly written popularizing books on physics, biology, chemistry, etc. belong to the class of simplifications of complex explanations.) So, all a layperson like me needs is a book that simplifies the complex explanations of the physicists about blackholes, of the geneticists about gene-sequencing, etc. in order for me to get some idea of what these physicists and geneticists are doing. Unlike a text-book in physics or in genetics, these popularizing books that simplify complex ideas DO NOT enable me to do physics or genetics. Instead, they make use of the rich resources of a natural language (similes, metaphors, analogies, examples, jokes, etc.) to get an idea approximately across to someone like me who lacks the technical expertise in the area or domain under consideration.
Now comes the question of the relationship between the Upanishadic statements and Puranic stories. If, as you seem to suggest now and then in your post to me, it is the case that Puranic stories tell me “in simple terms” something that the Upanishads make “complicated” (or render the same in ‘abstruse’ terms, as you put it), then my choice is clear: go for the Puranic stories all the way. Under this construal, Puranic stories are alternatives to the Upanishadic claims. I do not believe this to be the case.
Do the puranic stories simplify the complex claims of the Upanishads? If they did, analogous to what I said above, the puranic stories could not help me attain enlightenment, much the same way a popularizing book on modern day physics does not enable me to do research in physics today. Then, the only way I can do physics is by learning physics; similarly the only way to attain enlightenment would be to understand the Upanishads. I do not buy this either. That is why I do not think that Puranic stories are simplifications of the Upanishads.
III
Question: The relationship between the Puranas and the Upanishads with regards to simplification need not necessarily be of the type Popular Science Books : Physics Text Books. It could be of the type Undergraduate Physics Text Books : Graduate Physics Text Books. They could be dealing with same subject, but the coverage, depth, and rigour could be different. But both will help one learn Physics and do Physics.
A good point, even though it is not entirely clear to me what that point does to my argument. Therefore, let me think aloud and consider two ways in which undergraduate textbooks in physics help you to do physics.
Let us suppose you learn Snell’s law of refraction, Maxwell’s law of electro-magnetism and, say, an introductory chapter on Nuclear physics. Let us say that you also do some laboratory experiments on the first two. No doubt, you are learning to do physics now. Do they help you do research on Nuclear physics immediately thereafter? Today, their function is entirely different: they are propaedeutics, courses that provide you with an introduction to the subject. They help you acquire the necessary apparatus to learn more and go deeper into the subject. They are not simplifications of complex explanations but ones that provide you with some rudimentary notions, using which you can learn other concepts. When you learn about the atomic value of an element in Chemistry, this piece of knowledge does not simplify. You merely learn that elements have atomic values and you might also learn something about what that word means. You will come across the idea of electrons, their orbits and nucleus. You are taught that electrons can be excited but you also learn that it has something to do with energy. In other words, the undergraduate texts prepare you for research; you do as laboratory experiments what research was to your predecessors. In this sense, because the frontier of knowledge keeps moving, the nature and kind of preparation required to do research also keeps shifting.
Do the Puranic stories have a similar propaedutic function with respect to the Upanishads? If they do, then you are suggesting something like the following: enlightenment consists of vertical hierarchy of knowledge elements and that one can become enlightened if and only if one has gone through the phase of undergraduation. If you want to argue this, then you are committed to saying that there is only one route to enlightenment. The other paths train you to tread the Upanishadic path. ‘All routes lead to Jnana’ and only though that can you achieve enlightenment.
Three things require noting in this regard. One is that this is a description that those who follow this path provide with regard to other paths: all other paths are moments in one’s own path. While this could be true of one’s own development, it overlooks the fact that disciples of the other paths say exactly the same thing with respect to their own path. The second thing is that it makes enlightenment ‘conditional’ upon possessing some specific ability or another. In the same way not every undergraduate student in physics can go on to do research in physics, it suggests that only some can attain enlightenment. The third thing is that such a position cannot account for the rivalry between the different Indian traditions: their rivalry is not at the level of a competition between different undergraduate texts, namely, which of the paths brings you to the path of ‘jnana’ quicker and better. Instead, they claim that they all help you in achieving enlightenment and that ‘jnana’ itself is but one of the paths to enlightenment.
Let me now consider the following question: is there any way of deciding which kind of research in physics is better? That is to say, is research in Plasma physics better than research in solid state physics, or doing research in astrophysics? The only way of making sense of this question is to relativize it to an individual’s concern of wanting to know the area in which s/he should do research: In which area do I want to do research and why?
The multiple paths to human happiness is something analogous to the above situation, as I see the issue. Being happy or enlightened (as you know, I use these two words as synonyms) is like doing research in physics. It is not an ‘end state’; it is a goal only in the sense of ‘doing research in physics’ can be our goal. Whether you do research in plasma physics or solid state physics, you are doing research in physics; in the same way, Upanishads and puranas help you find happiness. There is no hierarchy of any sort between them.
IV
I intended to speak of “two ways in which undergraduate textbooks in physics help you to do physics” but ended up writing only about one way. Here is the second of the two ways I wanted to consider.
Assume, for a moment, that both Upanishads and Puranas are propaedeutics to “doing research”, i.e., to be happy. Could we then compare them and say which one of them is better? Though I cannot answer this question on the basis of my experience, I think even the enlightened would face the following issue, which I have often faced in my career.
When you have acquired the competence in some domain and are doing further research, people often ask you for a “good text book”. I find this an extremely difficult question to answer. The reason is this: I find a text book a ‘good one’, if it gives me (the experienced researcher) a very good overview of my field of research, beginning with (what I consider) rudimentary ideas. However, I have discovered (through my own experience) that what is a ‘good text book’ to me is more often than not a ‘very bad text book’, if you look at it from a pedagogical point of view. One who begins learning a new field requires another kind of introduction than what I would consider a ‘good introduction’. As an experienced researcher, I find a systematic overview of my domain a ‘good introduction’; those who begin to learn a new domain require a good introduction to learn and not a ‘systematic overview’. Our requirements are different. That is also the reason why writing a ‘good text book’ (or being a teacher) is not something every good researcher can do. Only some can be good teachers; only a few can write good text books.
In this sense, I believe that even the enlightened would face analogous problems. Some might find some or another Upanishad a ‘good introduction’; some find that just one of the Mahavakyas is enough; yet others find the puranic stories sublime. The only one who can decide about it is the student. What helps him/her to find happiness is the thing that works for that person. More, one cannot say.
V
You ask what I mean by this: Three things require noting in this regard. One is that this is a description that those who follow this path provide with regard to other paths: all other paths are moments in one’s own path. While this could be true of one’s own development, it overlooks the fact that disciples of the other paths say exactly the same thing with respect to their own path.”
What I mean: Bhakti, for instance, claims that it is the best path to enlightenment because both the ‘Karma’ and the ‘jnana’ path are the subordinate moments of Bhakti. (I speak about this more in detail in my “How to speak for the Indian traditions” article.) All I want to suggest is that teach path (karmic, Jnana, Bhakti, yogic, Tantric, meditative, etc) is special to the practitioner and S/he sees in it the presence of all other paths. We need to account for this stance
Why I say this in the context of the discussion: let us, for the time being, associate puranic stories with the practice of puja, and consider this too as a path to enlightenment. Were we to say that one does not achieve enlightenment through this manner and claim that only ‘jnana’ leads one to enlightenment, then we cannot account for the claim (that many in our traditions make) that illiterate people, with their simple practice of doing a daily puja to some vigraha or another (or even to trees), also achieve enlightenment. In our accounts of and attempts at understanding enlightenment, we need to account for these claims. (We could account for them by saying they are false; but I take them seriously.)
You ask: “But what’s wrong with believing that only some can attain enlightenment? No-one’s claiming that some people are being forcibly shut out. Technically speaking, enlightenment is open to all. But to me your view is analogous to saying that everyone can be an opera singer or a fabulous dancer.”
One’s ability to become an opera singer or a fabulous dancer is conditional: it depends on one’s biological inheritance and one’s aptitude, among other things. It also depends on one’s skill and practice; one’s teachers and so on. Human happiness, according to how I understand the Indian traditions, is accessible to all. Every one of us can be happy. Not merely ‘technically’, as you put it, but also in reality. The fact, however, that all of us are not happy has led the Indian traditions to investigate things that stand in the way of human happiness. It has also made them discover various means and modalities to overcome these impediments. All human beings, if they seek happiness, can really become happy. The possibility of achieving this goal does not depend on some kind of ‘moral luck’, the way being an opera singer or a fabulous dancer does. “Seek, and ye shall find”, our traditions seem to say. (I speak about these things more in detail in the talk I gave at the Catholic University of Louvain.) Finding happiness is not a question of accident or luck; it is the guaranteed result of a search.
Is Enlightenment different from happiness? Well, here one chooses one’s own terminology, I guess. The happiness that I speak about is what Aristotle called ‘Eudaimonia’: as that which if a person has, s/he will never lose. There might be more to enlightenment than happiness, as defined above. However, I do believe that enlightenment is the only ‘property’ which, if you once have it, you will never lose. No other human quality has this nature.