Brief History of Indian Psychology

Meaning of Indian Psychology:

By Indian Psychology we mean an approach to Psychology that is based on ideas and practices
that developed over thousands of years within the Indian sub-continent. In other words, the word
‘Indian’ was used to indicate the honor and origin of this approach to Psychology-the origin of
the underlying Philosophy, the conceptual framework, the methods of enquiry, and the
technology of consciousness that it uses to bring about psychological change and transformation.
It may be useful to make explicit that we do not use the word ‘Indian’ to localize or limit the
scope of this approach to Psychology; we do not mean, for example, ‘the Psychology of Indian
people’ or ‘Psychology as taught as Indian Universities’. Basically, Indian Psychology is
considered as a meta-theory and as an extensive body of related theories and practices has
something essential and unique to contribute to the global civilization as a whole.

Integration of Modern Psychology with Indian Thought:

For many years Psychology has been tied to the apron-string of Philosophy. In many places the
string still holds while generally the connection has been served. With the history of such
intimate association between the two disciplines, one would have expected Psychology to set-up
its separate household on attaining maturity, but continue to have a close family ties with the
parental stem. The separation unfortunately has not been cordial. It has resulted in a kind of
rebellious-son attitude causing a hiatus between the two disciplines where everything belonging
parental stem is ignored. As a result, no attempt of any significance has been made to utilize the
rich heritage of our philosophical thought in formulating problems for research in modern
psychology. In their zeal to be scientific, modern Indian psychologists have shut their eyes to the
psychologies of their own systems of thought and are being constantly dazzled by the modern
scientific psychology of the West. In India, this has resulted in the development of psychology
without firm roots. Instead of presenting a vigorous scientific psychology rooted in Indian
traditions, we have at best been able to develop a pale and insipid edition of the American or
British Psychology. Formulation of proper methodology for the study of concepts in Indian and
Buddhist Philosophy in the light of modern experimental psychology is urgently required. It is
pointed out that the gap between is not difficult to bridge. Certain problems are indicated on
which modern psychology could profit by adopting working hypotheses drawn from Indian
systems and verifying them by the application of scientific methodology.

One of the interesting features of Indian thought has been the religion, philosophy, and
psychology does not stand sundered. This does not mean that the development in each did not
take place. Each flourished and became in due course differentiated into important disciplines,
but maintained intimate ties. Hiriyanna (1951) pointed out. “When the word ‘psychology’ is used
in Indian philosophy, it should be understood in its original sense as the science or doctrine of
the soul, for its teaching, except in one or two cases, is based upon the superstition that the soul

1
exists. This study in Indian never branched off from philosophy and every system has therefore
its own psychology” (p.66)

Subject matter of Indian Psychology:

‘Know thy self’ and the ‘ko’ham’ (who am I?) probably epitomize the Western and Indian
approaches to the problem of human identity from ancient times. While the dictum, ‘Know thy
self’, is an injunction from ‘other’, ‘ko’ham’, is an inquiry from ‘within’. Though both of them
aim at realizing the nature of one’s true identity, they may be considered as representing the
second person and first person or objective and subjective perspectives, and have formed the
foundations of two different types of self-psychologies offering different perspectives on human
nature per se. Ego and ahamkara are representative concepts for Western and Indian traditions,
which refer to human identity at a psychological level. They have been used synonymously and
often ahamkara is translated as ego. However, there are certain conceptual; similarities and
dissimilarities between two.

The differences between Indian and Western Paradigm:

Western psychology is largely confined to two dimensions which are both fully accessible to the
ordinary waking consciousness—the physical and the social. Genetics, neurophysiology and the
cognitive sciences are typical for sub-disciplines with a focus on the physical dimension, and the
various offshoots of psychoanalysis, social constructivism and cross-cultural psychology could
be considered typical for those who focus on social factors. Between the two, there is still, in
spite of many attempts at ‘softening’ psychology, a widespread tendency to take the physical
dimension more seriously than the social.

The intellectual tradition of India starts from radically different assumptions. Ontologically, the
most fundamental reality is not matter, but spirit; or more precisely, the indivisible unity
of saccidānanda, of absolute existence, consciousness and delight. In other words, the Indian
tradition includes psychological phenomena like consciousness and joy as core-elements of
reality, and in fact it takes not physics, but ‘knowledge of the self’ (adhyātma-vidyā) as the
fundamental science. Accordingly, the possibility and cosmic importance of an absolutely silent,
transcendent consciousness are hardly ever doubted, while there are major schools of thought
that do doubt the importance and even the reality of the material pole of existence. While
Western science has come to terms with the fact that there are many different types of physical
energies and substances, of which some are not directly perceptible by the human senses, the
Indian tradition takes it for granted that there are also various types and levels of non-physical
existence—entire inner ‘worlds’ which are not directly perceptible to the ordinary waking
consciousness, but that are ontologically as real, or even more real than the ordinary physical
world. These non-physical realities are considered to be intermediate planes of conscious
existence between the absolute, silent consciousness of the transcendent and the apparent
unconsciousness of matter. As a result, physical and social factors are accepted as part of causal

2
networks, but not as the full story—events are thought to be influenced by a wide variety of
forces that include factors belonging to non-physical realities.

It may be clear that these two basic views of reality lead to a very different sense of what
psychology is about, how it is to be conducted, and what can be expected from it. For those
under the influence of the physicalist worldview, psychology deals either with outer behaviour or
with mental processes that happen within the neuro-physiological apparatus of individual human
beings; even those who stress social influences, tacitly assume that such influences are
transferred by physical means. It is taken for granted that consciousness, whether individually or
socially determined, depends on working neural systems. For those under the influence of the
Indian system, consciousness is primary. It is taken to be all-pervasive, and as existing within
space and time, as well as beyond both. The borders of the individual are porous, and the
individual consciousness is found to extend through space and time, to others, to all kinds of
inner worlds, and even to what is beyond all manifestation. As a result, non-physical realities and
parapsychological phenomena fit perfectly within this explanatory framework, and there is no
difficulty accepting an eternal soul as our real self.

The Western view of the relation between ego and consciousness is spelt out clearly by Carl
Jung, who does not admit consciousness without ego at its centre (Jung, 1971). The Indian
tradition agrees that in the ordinary waking state the ego seems to be the centre of one’s
consciousness, but it does not limit consciousness to the ordinary waking state. Western
researches have paid attention the distinction between pure consciousness and mind, and the
corresponding identity sense. In Eastern cultures the conception of transcendental “Self” is more
prevalent than Western cultures.

Modern Psychology in the West has largely a scientific bias and is primarily concerned with
explanation and prediction of human behaviour, and development of scientific theory of
behaviour. Its application in the fields of psychotherapy, education, industry, and other spheres
of human activities is only a later development. We can even venture to say, despite the fact that
most modern psychology is fast becoming applied, that its primary interest lies in formulation of
valid principles of human behaviour and it’s only secondarily that it is interested in their
application. This is one of the main reasons why psychology in the West quickly differentiated
itself and developed into an independent branch of knowledge. In contrast, the interests of
ancient Indian thinkers were always practical, and if there was any psychology, it was applied
psychology.

Another feature that makes psychological theories in Indian thought appear distinct from modern
psychology is the difference in methodology. The methods of investigating used in the latter are
largely modeled after those of physics, physiology and clinical medicine. Rigorous techniques
for the collection of information, observation, and experimental controls are employed. In recent
times there has been a vast inroad of statistical methodology in psychological researches. This is
certainly commendable and has helped psychology to mature as a science. However, this itself

3
implies certain underlying assumptions, postulates, or even “unconscious prejudices,” about
sources of our knowledge and making of inference. And if facts challenge these, there is a
natural tendency first to reject the facts rather than reexamine the assumptions. The common
tendency of the scientist to keep his postulates intact accounts for what may be termed as
“scientific conservatism”. It is a good safeguard against rash conclusions but the limitations of its
methodology sometimes retard the progress of science by creating resistance to fresh ideas and
new point of views.

The methodology of Indian psychology is different. In the West, there is a tendency to concretize
and convert everything into an “object” which is not only measurable but also capable of doing
something useful and practical. The word “objective” has usually implied thing-biased. Any
experience which is not amenable to this conversion is labeled as “subjective” and considered
unworthy of science. This kind of objectivity is not considered essential by Indian thinkers. What
is important is freedom from bias and dispassionateness on the part of the observer. As such, the
Indian seers who have undergone years of rigorous training and discipline have not fought shy of
highly complex and subtle experiences as the basis of their science. Rather than depend only
upon strict objective observation and experimentation, Indian psychologists have based their
conclusions also upon “spiritual experiences”. It would be wrong to dismiss these as
uncontrolled and unsystematic data unworthy as a science. Before any reliance was placed on his
experience, the seer was expected to undergo a long process of self-discipline. This was a very
rigorous “control”, but a different order from what we are usually familiar with in scientific
experimentation.

On the other hand, preoccupation and experimental designs, borrowed largely from the physical
sciences, often acts as a kind of shackle in the development of modern psychology. Instead of
adapting the methodology, or developing new ones, to meet with the diverse and highly complex
subject matter of human behaviour, the modern psychologist, in a way, follows the Procrustean-
bed policy of forcing every problem into a set scheme, and neglecting those which do not appear
to be easily amenable to experimental design. This attitude was particularly noticeable in the
early days of modern psychology when it was almost solely concerned with simple processes of
sensation, analysis of perception, and reaction time, and had left out the area of so-called “higher
mental processes” and complex phenomena like personality and human motivation, simply
because these did not fit easily into strict “controls” of the laboratory. The attitude of negation,
though to a large extent corrected by recent advances in clinical, social and industrial
psychology, still lingers a little in experimental psychology.

On the other hand, Indian psychology has remained closely integrated with philosophy and
religion, and, as a consequence, always had in its purview vital problems of man’s temptation,
nature of pain, liability to err in perception and action, conflict, anxiety, emotions, the unsteady
nature of mental processes, at the same time have prescribed practical courses for their control.
Complexity has never frightened Indian thinkers. On the other hand, many Western
psychologists have fought shy of the complexity of human behaviour. For long, the experimental

4
psychologists confined themselves to the study of simple sensory and motor processes, and even
Ebbinghaus who ventured into the realm of the so-called “higher mental processes” remained
loyal to the ideal simplification of the stimulus and isolation of response. This ideal is still very
well in physical spheres, but is a dangerous one in psychology and the social sciences, which by
the very nature of their subject-matter cannot avoid a high degree of complexity.

Hence, vital differences in approach, outlook, and methodology have kept modern psychology
away from the contribution of Indian thinkers.

Identity and Self in Indian Thought:

The Indian perspective views human beings as bio-psycho-social-spiritual organisms. On the

transcendental level, identity refers to atman in Vedanta and purusa in Sankhya. Since
Upanisads declare that transcendental Self, atman, is identical with the highest principle of
universe, it also declare that the self is Brahman. The transcendental state of consciousness, if it
can be a state of all, is itself called the Self, atman. Consciousness can be divided into four
stages. Thus turiya or so called fourth state of consciousness, vis-à-vis the other three-jagrat
(waking), svapna (dream) and susupti (deep sleep)- is the substratum of all phenomenal
experience, irrespective of the state. Hence, turiya is the original condition and real states; and all
other phenomenal states of consciousness, including waking, are the altered states from the
Upanisadic point of view (Salagame, 1988). It is the ‘ground’ of awareness, on which waking,
dream, sleep and other experiences happen with a ‘subject-object/self-other’ duality as ‘figure’.
Therefore, turiya was considered as the essence of the one self-cognition common to all other
states, and was regarded as the self to be realized-sa atma sa vijneyah.

The Philosophy of Vedanta:

Of all Indian thinkers Sankara is perhaps the most misunderstood, although it can be said without
any fear of contradiction that through-out his extensive writings he has nowhere been
ambiguous. He combined profundity of thought with clarity of expression-a combination rare in
philosophical writings.

The Absolute and Individual Self:

Sankara’s unflinching logic led him to the supra-rational (and not to irrational). He starts with the
view that the essence of reality must be its absoluteness: it must remain ever the same,
unconditioned by time, space and causality. It follows from such a conception of reality that the
human intellect, conditioned and varied as it is, has not the remotest chance of ever
comprehending it in its entirety. Hence revelation is the only source of knowledge regarding the
ultimate reality of the universe.

The world abounds in evil, and suffering seems to be the lot of every individual. Everybody
desires to attain happiness and avoid misery. In fact, all our endeavors are directed towards the

5
end. Desire for salvation is a desire to get rid of all kinds of misery, which truly constitute our
bondage.

Law of Karma:

One of the major aspects of Sankara’s thought was the law of karma. The law of karma in the
moral world is the counterpart of the law of conservation of energy in the physical world. What-
ever a person may do, he must someday feel its consequences. But it is also evident that the
consequences of all our actions are not experienced in a single life. Every action bears fruit, but
it requires suitable time and environment for its fulfillment; till then it remains a latent force. So
life has continued from eternity, the store of our karma must necessarily be inexhaustible, for
while part of it is being spent through experience (bhoga), fresh karma is being added.

Atman:

Next concept is the concept of Atman, which is declared as immutable and indestructible by
Vedanta to be a self-evident truth. It is therefore evident that Atman is neither the body nor the
senses nor the mind, in as much as all these are state of a flux. It may be noted that the ahankara
(ego) is in existence only in so far as it is understood with reference to events. In Vedanta,
Atman is accepted as the reality, the everlasting and unchanging essence of the individual,
inasmuch as it is unaffected by psychic or physical changes and at the same time forms
noumenon of which all mental and bodily changes are phenomena. But the difficulty of
discovering it is apparent.

Sankara shows that the subject (visayin) can never be the object (visaya). Whatever becomes an
object of knowledge becomes, by the fact, something other than the self. So the knower is
unknowable. The body, manas (mind), the budhhi (intellect), and the ahankara (ego) are all
objects of knowledge, are variable, and are not therefore Atman. In fact, all our actions, both
mental and physical, are possible only on the assumption that the Atman is identical with either
mind or the body or with both. The Atman ever remains the subject, and cannot become the
object.

Again, the world, which is always a state of flux, is said to have the self-same Brahman as its
cause (karana), both material (upadana) and efficient (nimitta). Now a question arises that how
the non-relational Brahman could be linked with the relational world, a world containing
individual Jivas as well? Sankara says that in no way could this impossibility be made possible.
And ultimate it must be held that the world is not, nor did it ever exist, neither will it exist in
future. The only truly existing thing is Brahman, and all else is naught.

Maya:

Sankara also explains the concept of Maya (illusion) or adhyasa (superimposition), the principle
of unifying contradictions-contradiction between self and non-self, the ego and non-ego, the

6
subject and the object, the cause and the effect, Brahman and the world. Suppose you take a rope
to be a snake; this is adhyasa. You take Brahman to be the world; this too is adhyasa. In reality
there is no snake, no world, and there should not be any superimposition; the one cannot be the
other. Yet it is inherent nature to identify the truth with falsehood.

Levels of Truth:

Last of all, Sankara keeps in mind the following two fundamental principles in explaining the
levels of truth:

a) Although he does not really admit kinds of truth, yet for the sake of convenience he
speaks of (i) paramarthika truth attributable only to Brahman, (ii) vyavaharika truth
attributable to the objective world, and (iii) pratibhasika truth attributable to the illusions
of an individual so long as they last.
b) That (i) from the standpoint of Brahman, Maya is tuccha (negligible)-the question of its
existence or non-existence does not arise, (ii) from the standpoint of strict logic, Maya is
anirvacaniya (inexplicable), i.e. it logically fails to explain any relationship between
Brahman and the objective world, (iii) from the stand point of common experience Maya
is vastava (real), the very life of the world.

The Philosophy of Navya-Nyāya:

Navya-Nyāya or Neo-Logical darśana (view, system, or school) of Indian logic and Indian

philosophy was founded in the 13th century   by the philosopher  Gangeśa
Upādhyāya of Mithila and continued by Raghunatha Siromani. Navya-Nyāya developed a
sophisticated language and conceptual scheme that allowed it to raise, analyze, and solve
problems in logic and epistemology. It systematized all the Nyāya concepts into few categories
(sense-) perception (pratyakşa), inference (anumāna), memory and Illusion.
The system starts with the postulates all knowledge by very nature points to an object beyond it
and independent of it. These objects, it is added, are independent not only of knowledge, but also
of one another, whence the doctrine may be described as pluralistic realism. The multifarious
things of experiences are divisible into certain classes of which one called ‘dravya’ or
‘substance’ the most important. The dravyas are nine in number-(1) ‘earth’ (prithivi), (2) ‘water’
(ap), (3) ‘fire’(tejas), (4) ‘air’ (vayu), (5) ‘akasa’, (6) ‘time’ (kala), (7) ‘space’(dik), (8) the ‘self’
(atman), and (9) manas; and they, together with their various properties and relations, explain the
whole universe. They are all ultimate, and as such are either infinite or infinitesimal, the system
viewing things made up of parts as necessarily transient. It will be best to describe the nine
dravyas:
(1) to (4) ‘Earth’, ‘Water’, ‘Fire’ and ‘Air’: Here, by these four, one should not understand the
discrete things of common experience bearing those names, but their ultimate material causes
which are supra-sensible-the atoms (paramanus) which are partless and eternal.
(5) ‘Akasa’: this and the four dravyas are together known as ‘elements’ (bhutas); but while the
latter are found in two forms-primary and secondary-akasa appears only in one form. It is
partless and infinite and does not therefore; produce anything as the atoms of other elements do.

7
(6) and (7) Time’ and ‘Space’: These are conceived as objective realities; and they are infinite
and partless like akasa. Time cannot be measured except indirectly by means that possess parts,
e.g. the involvements of the sun. Similarly space cannot be defined except by reference to
determinate objects, like, the pole star. In other words time and space are not of atomic structure;
and points and instants are conventional divisions of them.
(8) Self: It is many, each of being regarded as omnipresent and eternal. Though theoretically
present everywhere the feelings, thoughts and volitions of a self are combined to the physical
organism with which it is, for the time being associated. So, for practical purposes, the self is
where it acts. A peculiar feature of the system is that it makes knowledge an attribute of the self
and that too. Not an essential, but only an adventitious one. This character is taken to be shown
by dreamless sleep where the self is supposed to endure without being characterized by
knowledge. The self thus differs from matter only in that it may become conscious and not in
that it is itself mental in nature. Two other attributes of it, viz, desire (iccha) and volition (yatna),
are conceived more or less similarly. They like knowledge refer to an object and are meaningless
without such reference. The really mental or spiritual element in the doctrine accordingly is not
the self, but these three attributes are all transient. Our own self we know directly; but the selves
of others can be known only indirectly through their behaviour, etc. Whether it is our own self or
that of another, one can never know by himself, but always as the subject of which something is
predicated.
(9) Manas: This is atomic and eternal, but unlike the first four dravyas, does not give rise to any
product. Each self has its own manas, which is merely an instrument of knowing and therefore as
insert as any other sense. It is consequently incorrect to translate it as ‘mind’. It may thus be
described as exercising a double function: It helps the self in acquiring knowledge, but at the
same time acts as a check upon by narrowing its field to a single object or single group of
objects.
Memory:
The next important concept described by Navya-Nyāya was memory. Gangesa argued that
immediate experience and memory do not refer to the same object. Memory refers to an event in
the past, while immediate experience refers to an object in the present. So memory refers to an
object in the past, and if it does so correctly, then it must be true. 
Perception:
The essence of ordinary perception is that it is generated by sense organ. Gangesa defines
perception as that which is not produced by instrumentality of cognition. The problem of true
perception has been approached mainly from three points of view. A section of Buddhists holds
that true perception is determined only by its object. When imagination contributes nothing to
body of perception, it is called nirvipalpaka perception, which roughly corresponds to Western
Psychology. The Prabhakaras find the true character of perception in its immediacy. Perception
is direct awareness. Naiyayikas holds that perception is generated by the instrumentality of a
sense-organ. According to Gangesa, sense organs play the part of an instrument in the production
of perception in common human being. Perception admits of two classes, viz. non-relational and
relational. The objects of perception are as follows: (1) substance, (2) attributes, (3) action, (4)
the relation of inherence, (5) universals, (6) negation. Perceptible objects alone are perceived,
and experience teaches us that objects are perceptible. Gangesa points out that only the fit sense-
object contacts lead to perception.

8
Illusion:
Regarding illusion Naiyayikas say that an absent of object is also connected with sense-organ by
means of some form of consciousness, say memory. The piece of rope by some of it properties
excites memory of a snake in our mind. Our eyes thus connected with the object of memory,
produce the visual perception of snake. There is no difference between normal perception and
perception produced by supernormal contact.
Inference:
People learn from experience that the existence of an object is a sign of the existence of some
other object. The sign may either precede or follow the other object or may coexist with it. The
appearance of a dark cloud is a sign of rainfall in the immediate future. The sudden swelling of a
small river of a hill region is the sign of a heavy rainfall in the immediate past. Naiyayikas
revises the arrangement of sign with some other thing marked by the sign. This process of
knowing, through a perceived sign, some other object that is not perceived, is called inference.
The essential elements in an inference are as follows: (1) paksa, the subject of an inference. (2)
Sadhya (probandum), what is to be established as existing in the subject of inference, (3) Hetu
(probans), the invariable sign of sadhya, and (4) Vyapti, the invariable association of hetu with
the sadhya.
These are the few concepts of Navya-Nyāya. They have sharpened their intellect, but have not
taught them to apply to life’s problems. They have failed to touch upon the secondary ends of
human life, arrange them in a hierarchy and correlate them to the highest end. In short, they are
divorced from real life and tend to live too much in a world of abstraction.

The Concept of ‘Gunas’ from Sankhya:

Samkhya was founded by Kapila and is strongly dualist. Sānkhya philosophy regards the
universe as consisting of two realities, puruṣa (consciousness) and prakṛiti (matter). Jiva (a living
being) is that state in which puruṣa is bonded to prakṛiti in some form. The universe is described
by this school as one created by purusa-prakṛiti entities infused with various permutations and
combinations of variously enumerated elements, senses, feelings, activity and mind. During the
state of imbalance, one of more constituents overwhelms the others, creating a form of bondage,
particularly of the mind. The end of this imbalance, bondage is called liberation, or kaivalya, by
the Samkhya School. Purusa is the transcendental self or pure consciousness. It is absolute,
independent, free, imperceptible, and unknowable through other agencies, above any experience
by mind or senses and beyond any words or explanations. Prakṛiti is the first cause of the
manifest material universe—of everything except the puruṣa. Prakṛiti accounts for whatever is
physical, both mind and matter-cum-energy or force. Prakṛiti is constituted of three factors, each
of which is called as a Guna.

Guṇa depending on the context means "string, thread, or strand", or "virtue, merit, excellence",
or "quality, peculiarity, attribute, property". In Samkhya philosophy, a guṇa is one of three
"tendencies, qualities": sattva, rajas and tamas. This category of qualities has been widely

9
adopted by various schools of Hinduism for categorizing behavior and natural phenomena. The
three qualities are:

● Sattva is a state of harmony, balance, joy and intelligence. Sattva is the guna that yogi/nis
achieve towards as it reduces rajas and tamas and thus makes liberation possible. To increase
sattva reduce both rajas and tamas, eat sattvic foods and enjoy activities and environments
that produce joy and positive thoughts. Sattvic foods include whole grains and legumes and
fresh fruits and vegetables that grow above the ground. All of the yogic practices were
developed to create sattva in the mind and body. Thus, practicing yoga and leading a yogic
lifestyle strongly cultivates sattva. It is the quality of balance, harmony, goodness, purity,
universal-ism, holism, construction, creativity, positivism, peacefulness, and virtue.
● Rajas is a state of energy, action, change and movement. The nature of rajas is of attraction,
longing and attachment and a raja strongly binds us to the fruits of our work. To reduce rajas
avoid rajasic foods, over exercising, over work, loud music, excessive thinking and
consuming excessive material goods. Rajasic foods include fried foods, spicy foods, and
stimulants. It is the quality of passion, activity, neither good nor bad and sometimes either,
self-centeredness, egoism, individualization, movement, and dynamism.
● Tamas is a state of darkness, inertia, inactivity and materiality. Tamas manifests from
ignorance and deludes all beings from their spiritual truths. To reduce tamas avoid tamasic
foods, over sleeping, over eating, inactivity, passivity and fearful situations. Tamasic foods
include heavy meats, and foods that are spoiled, chemically treated, processed or refined.
It is the quality of imbalance, disorder, chaos, anxiety, impurity, destruction, delusion,
negativity, dullness or inactivity, apathy, inertia or lethargy, violence, viciousness, and
ignorance.
In Indian philosophy, these qualities are not considered as present in either-or fashion. Rather,
everyone and everything has all three, only in different proportions and in different contexts.
The living being or substance is viewed as the net result of the joint effect of these three
qualities.
According to Sankya School, no one and nothing is either purely Sattvik or purely Rajasik or
purely Tamasik. One's nature and behavior constitute a complex interplay of all of all three
gunas, in varying degrees. In some, the conduct is Rajasik with significant influence of Sattvik
guna; in some it is Rajasik with significant influence of Tamasik guna, and so on.
The balance of Gunas of everything and everyone can change and does. However, change in one
quality faces inertia from other two qualities in Indian worldview. Change needs internal or
external influence or reinforcement, as knowledge and force to transform. The force to change
comes from the Rajas guna, the Sattva guna empowers one towards harmonious and constructive
change, while Tamas guna checks or retards the process.
The mind’s psychological qualities are highly unstable and can quickly fluctuate between the
different gunas. The predominant guna of the mind acts as a lens that effects our perceptions and
perspective of the world around us. Thus, if the mind is in rajas it will experience world events as
chaotic, confusing and demanding and it will react to these events in a rajasic way.

10
All gunas create attachment and thus bind one’s self to the ego. “When one rises above the three
gunas that originate in the body; one is freed from birth, old age, disease, and death; and attains
enlightenment” (Bhagavad Gita 14.20). While the yogi/nis goal is to cultivate sattva, his/her
ultimate goal is to transcend their misidentification of the self with the gunas and to be
unattached to both the good and the bad, the positive and negative qualities of all life.

In Indian mythology, Vishnu is envisioned with more Sattva, Brahma with more Rajas, and
Shiva seen with all three Gunas.
References:

Bhattacharyya, J. V. (1953, 2nd edition): Navya-nayay. The Cultural Heritage of India, vol-III,
Pp-125-150

Bhattacharyya, S. (1953, 2nd edition): Navya-nayay. The Cultural Heritage of India, vol-III, Pp-
237-244

Cornellisen, M., Mishra, G., Verma, S. (2013): Ego and ahamkara: Self and Identity in Modern
Psychology and Indian Thought. Foundations and Applications of Indian Psychology, Pp-146-
164

Girishwar, M. and Dalal, A. K. (2015): Integration of Modern Psychology with Indian Thought.
Psychology for India, Pp-20-32

Hiritana, M. (2014): Outlines of Indian Philosophy. Nyaya-Vaisesika. Chapter-X, Pp-225-266

Sample Questions:

1. Short Notes (5 marks each)

(a) Differences between Western and Eastern approaches to Psychology
(b) The Gunas
(c) Purusa and Prakriti
2. Discuss the concept of ‘self’ from any two Indian viewpoints. (10)
3. Discuss the concept of ‘self’ from Buddhist view points. (10)

11