On Simplism

[Guest guest]

 

 

by Kundali dasa

 

 

 

 

Our intellect is like a muscle. If used regularly, it develops. If left alone, it atrophies. Naturally, as it is with the upkeep of the physical body, it is up to the individual to nourish and exercise his or her intellect, keep it fit. The best nourishment and exercise is contemplation of the Absolute Truth. The range of subjects with which to engage--and thereby distract our intellect from its real business--are endless. Some of them function, to present us with an endless array of things to engage our intellects and thus distract us from the business of focusing on the Absolute Truth.

 

If we are intellectually lazy, practicing what Peck calls simplism, which he considers the true meaning of the Biblical concept of original sin, than we will fall right into Maya’s trap. Peck is right about intellectual laziness as the true meaning of the Christian concept of original sin. The purpose of transcendentalism is to be able to finally distinguish truth from illusion and to do this we must not only read sastra, we must be able to apply the knowledge in the practical sphere. This is not possible if we are diseased with simplism--and unwillingness to develop our rational faculties to its fullest in the quest for Krishna consciousness.

 

When Bhaktivinode Thakura talks about laziness in his songs, he does not mean a man who sleeps all day and does not earn money for his family or does no practical service. He means lazy to process and understand and reframe information in a Krishna conscious context, which is what paramahamsas do. One of the reasons we are lazy, is because we believe in the myth that God-realization and self-realization comes in a flash, so we don’t have to really sweat mentally to get there. We just have to wait. If it never happens, then I’m just too fallen.

 

One method of intellectual laziness, quite common and quite easy to see through, is to engage our intelligence with trivia. Things of no deep concern or relevance to life. Most of what passes as popular culture serves this function--music on the radio, mindless garbage on TV, shopping for unnecessary things, most popular books, the myth of romance, working on the perfect relationship, busy social schedule, etc.

 

Another method of simplism, one more subtle, is to engage our intellects, but only in very restricted ways. For example, we can disguise simplism as being really Krishna conscious by being rigid (fanatical) about taking knowledge only from the scripture. Anything not mentioned in the Bhagavatam, or by Rupa and Sanatana Gosvamis, for example, is simply bogus. this sounds like a virtue, pure and unassailable; but only until one realizes that for many of the people who use this facade, do so to disguise their intellectual laziness, an unwillingness to sort and sift through the data that come up in our lives.

 

Yes, Rupa, Sanatana, Jiva, etc, are safe sources. One does not have to process and weigh whatever they say. Their teachings may be swallowed whole, without critical scrutiny. Then we may repeat them, and when we do that, we are unassailable. If I can back my thinking with Rupa Gosvami says, Jiva Gosvami says, Prabhupada says, then what devotee can doubt me? It does not matter whether I really grasp what they mean and why they said it, and to whom, and so forth.

 

In this way, the intellectually lazy, claiming a purer approach to KC, miss out on valuable wisdom available from numerous sources. And who is to say that Krishna did not sent that wisdom and those sources?

 

Who is to say, for example, that a brilliant book like The Road Less Traveled, is not a gift to us from Krishna via Scott Peck. Devotees will say, ones that practice simplism, "But Peck is not a devotee." Perhaps. But is that a problem for Krishna to use him? I think not. Then they will say, "But look at all the other people who read his book and are not devotees" as if this is a sensible argument. Our philosophy is that things can be used for Maya or for Krishna. Even if one billion people use his book for Maya, it does not stop you from using it for Krsna one bit. Look how many people use Bhagavad-gita for Maya, after all.

 

Actually, it is our responsibility to understand and know what KC is and then to be able to process any and all other ideas, so that we can incorporate what is KC from other sources, but perhaps expressed in a different way, or simply needs to be reframed into a KC context. This exercises the intellect. It makes our thinking muscle strong. We need strong thinking muscles to distinguish truth from illusion.

 

Devotees that are intellectually lazy, but eager to appear as the real thing, dress their laziness as fidelity to the scriptures and use the philosophy to escape from life rather than to respond to it, to cope with it. The philosophy of Krishna consciousness is a tool for practical use, it is not a shield to hide behind.

 

No doubt fidelity to the scriptures is a very important thing in KC. We are meant to be sastra-caksusa, so fidelity to the scriptures is something vital. However, while pleading fidelity to the scriptures, I can use this an excuse not to think, not to flex my mental muscles. Something comes up, "Let’s see what the scripture says." It’s very impressive--but only if there is concomitant understanding of the point in scripture according to time, place, and the specific circumstance one is facing.

 

In other words, scriptural fidelity must be accompanied by realism in the form of a capacity to bring what is written on the page into real life in a relevant way. this requires applying one’s noodle.

 

What simplism indicates is the kanistha devotee. The zeal of the kanistha devotee is that he or she is single-minded about the sastra; and they assume their little key-hole of realization to be the complete Absolute Truth. This stage is unavoidable in spiritual life, because we must all be neophytes for some period of time. The question is, how long does that period have to be?

 

Answer: It can be very short or it can run for lifetimes. To a large extent it depends on two things:

 

(1) Our willingness to get out of simplism (or better than willingness, our total commitment) to do it.

 

(2) Knowledgeable guidance out of the kanistha stage.

 

Simplism is really the inability or the unwillingness to discriminate, and a madhyama devotee is one who discriminates. Therefore, the moment a neophyte makes a personal commitment to learn and to practice discriminating, he or she is moving out of the kanistha phase into the madhyama level. This is very, very important, because Srila Prabhupada said (but I could not locate the quote in a jiffy) that one must at least be a madhyama devotee to go to the spiritual world.

 

Our philosophy is so brilliant. There are aspects of it that we shall probably never fully appreciate. For example, while it is Maya’s trick to find ways to divert our intellect from contemplating the real meaning of life, by throwing up intriguing and challenging things to engage us intellectually, the Vaisnava philosophy, realizing our vulnerability to this, because we have specific types of nature that are naturally attracted to certain types of activities, counters Maya by teaching us that these inclinations can be dovetailed into the service and quest for the Absolute Truth.

 

Some people are naturally carpenters. Some are naturally scientists. Some are naturally detectives. Some are naturally entertainers, poets, artists, administrators and organizers. And so on and so forth. All these types can be devotees by finding the ways to streamline their inclination with the devotional service of the Lord, and in the time in between, study the sastra and chant the holy name they can perfect their lives. We have to preach this and model it as well.

 

This is fully intellectually challenging, so there is no excuse for simplism, for being intellectually dead. On the contrary, if we understand this point very nicely we realize that the philosophy gives us permission to develop our intellect to our fullest capacity, just like it is the right of every citizen to try and make money to his or her fullest capacity.

 

When Srila Prabhupada writes in Caitanya-caritamrta, that eagerness is the only thing required to become empowered in devotional service, this is what he means: Eager to use my intelligence as much as possible to understand Krishna. When that eagerness is unrestrained, unflinching, free of simplism, and willing to go all out, then Krishna says, "I give you more intelligence."

 

But if we hold back, with this or that excuse, this or that rationalization, this or that fear, thinking we are really being very humble by admitting how useless and helpless we are, then Krishna holds back. Krishna does not help those who are not willing to help themselves. Why should He? He’s not a fool. He understands psychology. He understands physics. He knows that an object in motion tends to stay in motion and that an object at rest tends to stay at rest. He is not interested in the "devotee" who is practicing simplism; but He is very interested in those eager to make a contribution from their strength.

 

Your servant,

 

Kundali dasa