Yoga psychology - 2: Gunas

In the previous post in this series, we saw how our "sense of self" is different from our body, thought, emotions, and even our hard-coded emotional disposition. We can separate ourselves from all of them and inquire about them as if they were separate objects. 

We also introduced the model of universal consciousness that is central to Indian thought, and that our self is very much this all-pervasive universal consciousness. 

We also talked about "identity" and how our existential self (somewhat analogous to the "Ego" of Freudian model), called our "jivatma" has a lot of energy and cannot but identify with something or the other. A "enlightened" person would hence, manage this energy and carefully curate the set of identity objects to which it would attach to. 

In this post, we will talk about the "states of being" of our existential self and what does it take to curate its identity. 

The Mandukya upanishad talks about the story of "two golden birds perched on the self-same tree". It starts thus: 

We are made of "two golden birds" who are "inseparable companions" perched on the same tree. The jivatma or the individual self actively engages with the world outside. It wants to experience life and taste the fruits. The jivatma is the doer and the experiencer. Behind this golden bird is the universal self or the awareness, also called the "atmasakshi" (sometimes translated as "conscience") which is our own witness. 

This is a fundamental postulate of Indian philosophy, that we are our own witness-- and we can be both the subject (the inquirer) and the object of inquiry. 

The story goes on to narrate how the jivatma is tethered to the atmasakshi-- its inseparable companion. The more it tries to fly away, the more it comes back to rest in the universal self. 

A deluded jivatma fights its tethers and wants "freedom" from its own inseparable companion. But an "enlightened" jivatma does not consider this a state of bondage, to be tethered to the universal self-- instead, it realizes that all its awareness comes from the universal self, and actively seeks its guidance to engage with the world outside. 

*~*~*~*~*

The jivatma may be deluded because it is in a "state of being" where it is unable to listen to or tune into the universal self. Swami Vivekananda gives the analogy of a lake at the base of which, lies a precious gem. But often, the waters of the lake are turbulent, or turbid, which masks our view of the gem residing underneath. It is only when the waters are calm and clear, is the gem visible. 

The turbulence and turbidity in the lake refers to the state of being of the jivatma. Broadly our individual self can be in three different classes or states of being, which are called: tamas, rajas and sattva respectively. These are called our gunas.

Before we explain the gunas, let us connect them with analogous concepts from Cognitive Science, so we can understand them better. Cognitive Science today, classifies our emotional state into two broad classes based on their "arity". These are the so-called "negative" and "positive" emotions respectively. 

An emotional state is a "psychosomatic characterization" of our being. What this means is that an emotional state, "primes" our body and mind, for a specific class of responses. The same stimulus can elicit different kinds of responses, based on the emotional state that we are in. 

For instance, suppose we are in a state of fear after seeing some dreadful news trend on social media, and we are walking alone in the darkness. A stranger suddenly starts approaching us. Our immediate response would be driven by this fear, and prompt us to avoid, flee or make ourselves defensive. On the other hand, suppose we are walking alone in the darkness after we come out from a party and celebration, where we had a great time with friends. In this case, we are much less likely to feel threatened by a stranger approaching us, and would more likely believe that the stranger is lost and may be asking for directions, or some such. 

"Negative" emotions like fear, sadness, anger, etc. primes our body and mind to disengage from the world, while "positive" emotions like joy, pleasure, happiness, etc. primes our body to engage with the world. In a negative state of mind, we build defenses, we disengage, we are distrustful, we avoid interactions, we are stingy, we are risk averse, and so on. While in a positive state of mind, we are proactive, generous, trustful, assertive, willing to take risks, and so on. 

*~*~*~*~*

The state of tamas pertains to a state of being where we seek to disengage from the world. It is characterized by lethargy, lack of motivation, sluggish behavior and so on. The state of rajas seeks to actively engage with the external world. In a rajasic state, we are assertive, expressive, feel entitled, full of energy, and so on. As we can see, the tamasic and rajasic states roughly correspond to negative and positive emotional states, respectively. 

The sattvic state of being is where the mind is optimally tuned to awareness. It seeks to neither disengage from the world, nor to proactively engage with it. A sattvic state is where one is guided by awareness, rather than by emotion. 

Often, we come across moral posturing that calls sattvic state of being as "higher" and rajas as tamas as lower down in some of a cosmic, spirit hierarchy. This kind of moral posturing, in my opinion, only makes our mind's lake turbid and takes us away from really understanding these gunas. The moment something is regarded "holier" than something else, we get questions like, why did "God" create the less holy things, and so on. 

Note the copious absence of terms like "God", "Almighty", or any discourses on morality from the description of Yoga psychology. We are talking about consciousness, and positing that consciousness is something that is beyond our body, mind and emotions-- including intuition. This is a very specific postulate that forms the core of Indian worldview-- that there exists a universal consciousness that is the universe, and that is what gives us our sense of awareness. And that the core of our self is this universal consciousness that unbounded and eternal. 

Someone who claims to be in a sattvic state of mind all the time is either fully enlightened (in which case, others would be saying this about them-- not they themselves), or is telling a lie. A sattvic state of mind is very resource intensive. To be acutely aware and direct that awareness at will, requires a lot of energy and control. This is where the other states of being become important. 

A tamasic state of being is what we would typically experience on a lazy weekend. We need this "laziness" to recharge ourselves and bring some succor. This is when our mind and body relaxes, and our long-term (or subconscious) memory takes over and processes all that we have experienced. We need the tamasic state to prevent ourselves from burning out, and learn from our experiences. Disengagement from the world, is a fundamental survival instinct. Nothing "less holy" about it. 

Similarly, we need passion, drive and gumption to make an impact in the world outside. All these are part of the rajas guna. We need the rajas to bring enthusiasm and joy, and the drive to make things happen. 

However, tamas and rajas that are not guided by awareness, can get into an uncontrollable intensity, where they take our mind into a state of trauma. An uncontrolled tamasic state where we cannot come out of our urge to disengage from the world, leads to depression, suicidal thoughts, anger, frustration, and so on. Similarly, an uncontrolled rajasic state where we cannot control our urges to express and experience, leads to indulgence, lack of empathy, addiction, vice, and even psychopathic behavior. 

One who is guided by awareness, knows how much and when to engage and disengage with the world. Both tamasic and rajasic states of being are important aspects of our being-- and their optimal orchestration comes from a sattvic state of being. 

Yoga Psychology - 1: Self and unity

Over the last several years, I have had a growing interest in Cognitive Science and models of the mind. A chance encounter with some learned scholars, lead me to rediscovering the roots of Indian thought through a completely different hermeneutic framework from the machine hermeneutics that we study in school. I have documented my thoughts in several different ways-- Facebook posts, a series of posts on this blog with the label "Theory of Being", and a self-published Kindle book by the same name. My dream is to recreate a full-fledged theory of complex systems based on the theory of "being" with tools and methodologies to implement them in practice. 

More recently, I stumbled onto the theory of Yoga-- a practice spanning over several centuries, and which was documented and formalised by Maharshi Patanjali who is thought to have lived sometime between 7th to 2nd century BCE. This post is part of a series on my understanding of the human psyche based on the theory of Yoga. 

We start this series with the first post trying to understand the core of our existence through Yoga psychology. 

One of the fundamental things that Yoga psychology teaches us is that our body, mind, emotions, including our emotional dispositions hard-coded in our genes, are objective to our existence. We can separate them from our "self" and inquire into them as if it were an independent object. We can talk about our body as if it is something different from us; we can talk about our thoughts, beliefs and even prejudices as if they were different from us; we can even engage with our emotional dispositions and for example, say things like, "I am nervous by nature, and know why this is hard-coded into me and what evolution is trying to tell me, and I have also learned how to manage this nervousness"-- going on to show that, "my nervous nature" is something different from "me." 

Ordinarily, we "identify" with a lot of things-- including our body, thoughts, emotions, etc. This means that our "self" attaches itself to these objects, and acts as if it were these objects. When we identify with our body, we act as if we are our bodies. When we identify with our thoughts, we act as if we are our thoughts. Hence, when someone strongly identifies with an idea, like say, their gender, their nationality, their race, their ethnicity, etc. they act as if they are that object. Any reference by anyone to that object, is construed as a reference to them. Hence for example, if someone strongly identifies with their assigned gender, and say someone else rejects a gendered approach to life, it is construed as a rejection of their person. People with a strong sense of identity, actively work for the interest of their object of identity, expend time, energy and other costs to defend it from perceived threats, and do not ask what benefit they are getting from this association. 

Identifying with something is hence, fundamentally different from rational association. Rational associations are based on expected benefit versus cost. But identity is something that is beyond considerations of benefit and cost. We are what we identify with. 

Much of the upheavals-- both positive breakthroughs and human-induced disasters, in the world have been due to some core set of people strongly identifying with an idea. The passionate curiosity of Marie Curie led to the discovery of Radium and also radio-activity, when her discovery ultimately ended up killing her. Similarly, it is the passionate bigot who "becomes" her/his prejudice that create enormous conflict and crises. 

Curating our identity is hence a very fundamental and deeply important activity. We have a lot of "self-energy" (if there is such a term) within us, and we cannot but identify with something or the other, through our lives. We need to be very careful in choosing what we identify with-- what is that idea that we let become a part of who we are. Because, this is going to have irreversible consequences. 

The psychology of Yoga tells us something very deeply profound-- that our "self" is different from all the ideas and emotions that we possess, as well as our physical bodies. Yoga sutras teach us to objectively inquire into our body, thoughts and emotion by first disassociating from all of them. 

So, if we are not our body, nor our thoughts, nor our emotions, and not even our "nature", who are we then?  What is this "self" that is us? If we de-identify from everything-- from our bodies, our thoughts, our families, our countries, our genders, our communities-- what remains? Who are we? 

Indian thought has long since asked this question-- who or what is this "self" that is attaching itself to objects and driving our lives? The Upanishads in particular have long debates and discussions about the nature of our selves. 

Indian thought has long since maintained that the core essence of the universe is an all pervasive "consciousness" or "awareness" and our "self" is very much this indivisible, core, awareness that pervades-- or "is"-- the universe. 

The hermeneutics of machines that drives the study of modern physics, has no place for "consciousness"-- a term that is relegated to "mysticism" or "pseudo science" primarily because we cannot "see" or characterise it. However, science does work with several elements that we cannot "see" or "perceive"-- like radio waves, magnetism etc, and infer their existence and properties from how they affect the world outside.

The term "Yoga" means "to unite" or "to synchronise" or "to harmonise" our existential elements like our body, mind and emotions with the all-pervasive consciousness. The major impediment to bring about this unity is actually our sense of agency or "free will".  A deluded free-will or a will that is trapped in its thoughts and emotions, and strongly identifies with something or the other, is as much of an impediment to bringing about this unity, as an "enlightened" free-will is a catalyst to bring about this unity.