By Damodar Prasad das
In the sixth canto of Srimad Bhagavatam, Maharaja Pariksit, being tested by Sukadeva Goswami, rejects atonement as an effective approach in nullifying sinful proclivities: “Sometimes one who is very alert so as not to commit sinful acts is victimized by sinful life again. I therefore consider this process of repeated sinning and atoning to be useless” (SB 6.1.10). Sukadeva Goswami, pleased with his disciple’s intelligence, confirms this view, replying “Unless one is freed from the mode of ignorance, trying to counteract one action through another is useless because this will not uproot one’s desires. Thus even though one may superficially seem pious, he will undoubtedly be prone to act impiously.” (SB 6.1.11).Later, Sukadeva Goswami says: “These sins are like the dried leaves of creepers beneath a bamboo tree, which may be burned by fire although their roots remain to grow again at the first opportunity” (SB 6.1.13).
The problem of sinful desires, or what may be more neutrally called addictive behaviours, has been of great interest in modern psychology. Different schools of thought have approached the problem differently, but perhaps the most prominent in recent modern history has been the behaviourist school of psychology.
Behaviourism’s claim to fame lies in its characterisation and treatment of addictive behaviour, employing the concepts of stimuli, response, and conditioning. Conditioning has been categorised into two broad types, classical conditioning and operant conditioning. Classical conditioning was defined by Pavlov’s experiments with dogs, in which he found that dogs began to salivate (response) to neutral stimuli (for example, the ringing of a bell), which had been associated with the unconditioned stimulus (food). The response of the dogs to the ringing of the bell was called a conditioned response. In operant conditioning, the focus is not so much on stimuli as on anticipated results. In this view, behaviour is modified by the expectation of a certain consequence (Naik, 1998).
Modern behaviourist theory was popularised by Burrhus Frederic Skinner, whose entire body of work was based on animal experiments. Skinner’s experiments were conducted in laborious detail. It is typical of his style that after pages of dull exposition of ratios, curves, and descriptions of minute alterations of the conditions of the experiments, he inserts a phrase of massive import, which has not been substantiated by any of the preceding paragraphs. Phrases such as: “Much of what we do during the day is done not because of the positive reinforcements we receive but because of aversive consequences we avoid,” (Skinner, 1957) suggest that these experiments, described in meticulous detail, will somehow shed light on human behaviour.
Behaviour alteration of human beings by conditioning has featured grimly in dystopian novels such as A Clockwork Orange and 1984, where the assumed mechanistic model of man is the foundation of an oppressive social system. Chomsky makes the point, however, that the behaviourist jargon used by Skinner (operant, stimulus, reinforcer, conditioning etc.) while sensible within confined laboratory situations, become quite useless when applied to real-life behaviour (Chomsky, 1967). The result of such a practice is that perfectly adequate words in ordinary spoken language, which capture the nuances of different situations, are replaced by empty jargon which obscures the actual meaning of events (as in 1984).
The core of the philosophy of modern behaviourism lies in rejecting the notion of free will and of the individual. In Skinner’s only nominal work of fiction, Walden Two, he states, via a fictional mouthpiece: “I deny that freedom exists at all. I must deny it – or my program would be absurd” (Skinner, 1948).
Was he free to deny the existence of freedom?
If yes, then the denial is false.
If no, then he is forced to deny it. But the act of denial is a volitional one, else it has no meaning. If placed under duress one may deny something, which may be true or false, but such a denial is not taken seriously. Real denial of a statement requires free choice, therefore, Skinner’s denial is false, for the very act of denial implies freedom.
Skinner goes on to explain how the individual is no more than a machine, the actions of which are fully determined by the environment. He says: “…a philosophy which trusts to the inherent goodness and wisdom of the common man is incompatible with the observed fact that men are made good or bad and wise or foolish by the environment in which they grow” (Skinner, 1948). The implication is that the problem of sin, or addiction, can be solved by manipulating the environment, or the stimuli which act upon us. But goodness and badness, wisdom and foolishness, have no meaning if man is just a machine, if he has no free will, if he does not endeavour for one type of conditioning over another.
And yet one cannot help but recognise that Skinner was onto something when he denied the existence of freedom, and placed all importance on the process of conditioning. When we speak of conditioning, we speak of being forced to act in a certain way. Srila Prabhupada writes: “Actually, the living entity is not the performer of different activities. He is forced to act because he is situated in a particular type of body, conducted by some particular mode of nature” (Bg 14.19, purport). Elsewhere Srila Prabhupada writes: “Once placed in some particular kind of body, [the living entity] comes under the control of nature because the body, being matter, acts according to the laws of nature. At that time, the living entity has no power to change that law” (Bg 13.21, purport). How much these statements resonate with the following description given by Skinner of the conditioned response of a cat chasing a mouse:
“…when a cat hears a mouse, turns toward the source of the sound, sees the mouse, runs toward it, and pounces, its posture at every stage, even to the selection of the foot which is to take the first step, is determined by reflexes….All the cat has to do is to decide whether or not to pursue the mouse; everything else is prepared for it by its postural and locomotor reflexes” (Skinner, 1957).
It is generally understood that there is a different set of expectations for human beings than for animals, but how far is this difference understood? A dog may slink away from his master when he has done something which he knows his master will disapprove of. This may be regarded as a type of conditioning. Similarly, a human being will feel guilty when he breaks some social norm or expectation. It is the result of conditioning. Both the dog and the man have associated the breaking of some rule with a certain consequence, namely punishment. A well-trained dog will abide by his master’s rules, and a well-trained man will abide by the social or religious rules. This is the sum and substance of behaviourist psychology.
But when it is stated: athatho brahma jijnasa:“now is the time to inquire into the nature of Brahman,” more is expected of human intelligence than the internalising and mental fortification of social norms via a reasoning process. Actually, it is expected that a human being develop himself in such a way that he frees himself from all conditioning, good and bad.
All conditioning is a type of illusion which entails feelings of happiness and distress which fluctuate according to the changing conditions of material nature. One becomes freed from all kinds of conditioning by realising that he is spirit, a part and parcel of Krsna, the Supreme Spirit: mam ca yo ’vyabhicarena bhakti-yogena sevate sa gunan samatityaitan brahma-bhuyaya kalpate: “One who engages in full devotional service, unfailing in all circumstances, at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes to the level of Brahman” (Bg 14.26).
Even the most optimistic appraisal of behaviourist psychology will prove ineffectual in curing sinful or addictive behaviour, because at no stage does such a philosophy admit the possibility of a free living being, conditioned or unconditioned. Such therapies may be regarded as a type of atonement: the addictive behaviour may be suppressed for some time, even a long time, but is bound to re-occur in some form or another.
Sukadeva Goswami goes on to tell emperor Pariksit: “Only a rare person who has adopted complete, unalloyed devotional service to Krsna can uproot the weeds of sinful actions with no possibility that they will revive. He can do this simply by discharging devotional service, just as the sun can immediately dissipate fog by its rays.” (SB 6.1.15).
When we consider our own history in devotional service, it may be thought that the complete eradication of sinful desire only occurs when we become fully purified by a gradual process of spiritual practice. But, astonishingly, Srila Prabhupada, referencing Srila Jiva Goswami, states that even a slight glimpse of devotional service (abhasa-rupa bhakti) can uproot all sinful desire: “Even in the stage of abhasa-rupa bhakti, all the reactions of sinful life are uprooted and vanquished” (SB 6.1.15, purport). But how can this be so? Does it not fly in the face of bitter experience, of repeated fall down, even while on the path of devotional service? This is answered in the next sentence: “Srila Jiva Goswami expresses the opinion that…even if one has a desire to commit sinful actions, the roots of that desire are vanquished merely by abhasa-rupa bhakti” (SB 6.1.15). Once the sun of devotional service has risen, it is only a matter of time before the fog dissipates, never to return.
Damodar Prasad das (BCaiS)
References
Bhagavad Gita As It Is, translated by AC Bhaktivedanta Swami
Chomsky N. A Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior, In Leon A. Jakobovits and Murray S. Miron (eds.), Readings in the Psychology of Language, Prentice-Hall, 1967, pp. 142-143
Naik, P. Behaviorism as a theory of personality: a critical look. Great Ideas in Personality (http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/naik.html)
Leslie, JC. Ethical implications of behaviour modification: historical and current issues. The Psychological Record, 1997, 47, pp. 637-648.
Skinner, BF. An experimental analysis of behaviour. American Scientist. 1957.
Skinner, BF. Walden Two. 1948.
SrimadBhagavatam, translated by AC Bhaktivedanta Swami