Unit 1 Topic 7 of 8
Perspectives on reality: the schools, the states of consciousness and the layers of the person
Syllabus Perspectives on reality
The worldview page described the themes most Indian traditions share: an ordered universe, dharmadharmaधर्मsay: dhuhr-muhLiterally: that which holds or supports; from dhṛ-, to holdDharma is the right way of living: duty, ethics, and the order that holds society and the world together. It depends partly on one's role and stage of life.Western link Close to 'ethics', 'duty' or 'moral order'. The difference: dharma joins personal ethics, social roles and cosmic law, and it depends on context.Full entry in the glossary (right living), karmakarmaकर्मsay: kuhr-muhLiterally: action, deed; from kṛ-, to doKarma means action, and also the result that every action brings back to the person who did it, in this life or a later one.Western link Close to moral causation, or 'you reap what you sow'. The difference: in most schools karma is an impersonal law that works across lives; theistic schools say God oversees it, but even there it is not a judge's verdict on a single life.Full entry in the glossary (action and its results), rebirth and the search for release. Shared themes did not mean shared answers. On the biggest question of all, what is ultimately real, the classical schools said one thing, two, many, matter only, or no lasting substance at all.
This page compares those answers. It is about ontologyontologysay: on-tol-uh-jeeLiterally: Greek on, ontos (being) + logos (study)Ontology is the study of what exists: what kinds of things are real, such as matter, mind or consciousness.Indian link tattva (a principle of reality), and the debates between the darshanas about what is real.Full entry in the glossary, the study of what exists. Psychology students need it because each school's answer decides what the mind is, what consciousness is, and whether there is a lasting self to study. The page then turns to two models from the UpanishadsUpanishadउपनिषद्Upaniṣadsay: u-puh-ni-shuhdLiterally: sitting down near (a teacher); upa + ni + sadThe Upanishads are philosophical texts at the end of the Vedas. They ask what the self is and how it relates to the whole of reality.Western link Sometimes compared to Plato's dialogues, because they teach through questions and conversation. The key difference: their aim is direct experience of the self, not only a sound argument.Full entry in the glossary that appear in almost every book on Indian psychology: the four states of consciousness and the five layers of the person.
You do not need to memorise every school now. Unit 2 studies how Sankhya, Vedanta, Yoga and Buddhism claim to know, and Unit 3 returns to the self.
The schools disagree about what is real
The classical schools of Indian philosophy are called darshanasdarshanaदर्शनdarśanasay: duhr-shuh-nuhLiterally: seeing, view; from dṛś-, to seeDarshana means 'a way of seeing'. It is the usual word for a school of Indian philosophy, such as Sankhya, Yoga or Vedanta.Western link Close to 'philosophy' or 'school of thought'. The difference: a darshana is meant to be lived and practised, not only argued, and most aim at liberation.Full entry in the glossary. Indian tradition sorts them by one test: do they accept the authority of the VedasVedaवेदsay: vay-duhLiterally: knowledge; from vid-, to knowThe Vedas are the oldest sacred texts of India. They are hymns, ritual guides and teachings, first passed on by memory and recitation.Full entry in the glossary? Schools that accept it are called astikaastikaआस्तिकāstikasay: aas-ti-kuhLiterally: one who says 'it is' (asti)Astika schools are the Indian philosophies that accept the authority of the Vedas. The usual six are Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Sankhya, Yoga, Mimamsa and Vedanta.Western link Often translated 'orthodox', but it is not the same as 'theist'. The test is acceptance of the Vedas, not belief in God.Full entry in the glossary. There are six, in three pairs: NyayaNyayaन्यायNyāyasay: nyaa-yuhLiterally: rule, method, standard; 'that into which a thing goes back' (ni + i-, to go)Nyaya is the Indian school of logic and of the theory of knowledge. It studies how we can know things correctly and how to argue well.Western link Close to logic and epistemology in Western philosophy. The differences: Nyaya also aims at liberation, and its inference always includes an example from experience.Full entry in the glossary and VaisheshikaVaisheshikaवैशेषिकVaiśeṣikasay: vai-shay-shi-kuhLiterally: concerned with particulars (viśeṣa)Vaisheshika is the school that sorts everything that exists into basic categories. It taught that physical things are made of tiny atoms.Western link Close to Greek atomism and to Aristotle's list of categories. Unlike Greek atomism, it counts selves and minds as separate substances.Full entry in the glossary, SankhyaSankhyaसांख्यSāṃkhyasay: saang-khyuhLiterally: enumeration, countingSankhya explains everything with two realities: pure consciousness (purusha) and nature (prakriti). In Sankhya, the mind belongs to nature, not to consciousness.Western link Close to mind-body dualism, as in Descartes. The key difference: Sankhya puts the mind on the material side; only pure consciousness is separate.Full entry in the glossary and YogaYogaयोगsay: yo-guhLiterally: joining, yoking; discipline; from yuj-, to yokeYoga is both a school of philosophy and a set of practices that train body, breath and mind. Its classic text is Patanjali's Yoga Sutra.Western link Often compared with mind-body or mindfulness-based interventions. The key difference: classical Yoga is a full ethical and spiritual path, not only a technique for health.Full entry in the glossary, MimamsaMimamsaमीमांसाMīmāṃsāsay: mee-maam-saaLiterally: desire to reflect; inquiryMimamsa is the school that interprets the Vedas, mainly their rules for ritual and duty (dharma). Its founding text is Jaimini's Mimamsa Sutra.Western link Close to hermeneutics, the theory of interpretation, applied to sacred rules. It also resembles legal reasoning about how to read a law.Full entry in the glossary and VedantaVedantaवेदान्तVedāntasay: vay-daan-tuhLiterally: end of the VedaVedanta is the family of schools based on the Upanishads. They ask how the self (atman) relates to ultimate reality (Brahman).Western link Sometimes compared with idealist philosophy, which holds that mind or spirit is basic. The key difference: Vedanta claims this can be known by direct experience, not only by argument.Full entry in the glossary. Schools that reject the Vedas are called nastikanastikaनास्तिकnāstikasay: naas-ti-kuhLiterally: one who says 'it is not' (na asti)Nastika schools are the Indian philosophies that reject the authority of the Vedas: Buddhism, Jainism and Charvaka.Western link Often translated 'heterodox'. It is not the same as 'atheist': Buddhism and Jainism are nastika but are full religious paths.Full entry in the glossary: Buddhism, Jainism and the materialist CharvakaCharvakaचार्वाकCārvākasay: chaar-vaa-kuhLiterally: uncertain (one guess is 'sweet-tongued', caru + vac); the other name, Lokayata, means 'directed at the world' (loka + ayata)Charvaka, also called Lokayata, is India's materialist school. It held that only matter is real and that perception is the only sure way of knowing.Western link Close to materialism and empiricism in Western philosophy. Like modern physicalism, it explains the mind as a product of the body.Full entry in the glossary (Misra, 2014, p. 121).
Astika does not mean "believes in God". Classical Sankhya has no God, and Mimamsa thinkers "did not believe in God (Isvara)" (Paranjpe, 2011, p. 416). Nastika does not mean atheist or materialist either. The test is the Vedas, nothing else.
The labels hide a messy history. Sedlmeier (2014, p. 58), drawing on Hamilton, notes that the nastika schools grew up against a Brahmanical tradition "whose rigid system of sacrificial ritual and social hierarchy was seen as oppressive".
The classical schools and what each says is real
Astika and nastika describe a school's attitude to the Vedas. They do not mean believing or not believing in God.
Astika schoolsAccept the authority of the Vedas
They come in three pairs. Each pair shares many ideas.
-
Nyaya
Ultimately real: Many
Many real things. The world exists whether or not anyone knows it.
Vaisheshika
Ultimately real: Many
Many real things, sorted into categories, with nine kinds of substance, including atoms.
-
Sankhya
Ultimately real: Two
Two realities: pure consciousness (purusha) and nature (prakriti). Mind belongs to nature.
Yoga
Ultimately real: Two
The same two realities as Sankhya, with a special purusha called Ishvara.
-
Mimamsa
Ultimately real: A real world
A real world. Its main concern is duty (dharma) as the Vedas command it.
Vedanta
Ultimately real: One (Advaita)
Advaita: one reality, Brahman. Other Vedanta schools: God, selves and the world are all real.
Nastika schoolsReject the authority of the Vedas
Each stands on its own.
-
Buddhism
Ultimately real: No lasting substance
No lasting substance and no lasting self. Only changing processes that arise from conditions.
-
Jainism
Ultimately real: Two kinds
Two kinds of substance: living, conscious souls (jiva) and everything non-living (ajiva).
-
Charvaka
Ultimately real: Matter only
Matter only. There is no soul apart from the body.
Simplified. Each school has inner disagreements, and the labels hide a messy history. Grouping follows Misra (2014, p. 121).
| School | What is ultimately real | The self | The goal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advaita VedantaAdvaita Vedantaअद्वैत वेदान्तAdvaita Vedāntasay: uhd-vai-tuh vay-daan-tuhLiterally: not-two; non-dualAdvaita Vedanta teaches that the true self (atman) and ultimate reality (Brahman) are one. The feeling of being a separate person comes from ignorance.Western link Often called monism. Advaita writers prefer 'non-dualism': reality is not two, but it is not described as one countable thing either.Full entry in the glossary | One reality, BrahmanBrahmanब्रह्मन्brahmansay: bruh-hmuhnLiterally: the vast; from bṛh-, to grow, expandBrahman is the ultimate reality in Vedanta: the one source and ground of everything. It is often described as being, consciousness and bliss.Western link Close to 'the Absolute' in Western philosophy, or to God in mystical theology. The difference: in Advaita, Brahman is not separate from the self that seeks it.Full entry in the glossary; the world of many things is real for practical purposes | The true self (atman) is Brahman | Liberation through knowledge, possible in this life |
| Sankhya | Pure consciousness (many purushas) and nature (prakriti) | A silent witness; mind belongs to nature | Kaivalya, consciousness standing alone |
| Yoga | As Sankhya, with Ishvara (God, understood as a special purusha) | As Sankhya | Kaivalya, reached by stilling the mind |
| Nyaya-Vaisheshika | Many real things: atoms, time, space, selves, minds | Many eternal selves; consciousness is a quality, not their nature | The total end of suffering |
| Mimamsa | A real world; the focus is duty | On most accounts, a real, lasting self | Heaven, later the end of suffering |
| Early Buddhism | No lasting substance; changing processes | No permanent self; five changing groups | Nirvananirvanaनिर्वाणnirvāṇasay: nir-vaa-nuhLiterally: blowing out, extinguishing (nir + vā-, to blow)Nirvana is the goal of Buddhism: the end of craving, hatred and delusion, and so the end of suffering. The word means 'blowing out', as of a flame.Western link Sometimes compared to deep peace or the end of desire. Calling it 'annihilation' is a common Western mistake; Buddhist texts call it the highest happiness.Full entry in the glossary, the end of craving |
| Jainism | Living souls (jiva) and non-living substance (ajiva) | Many conscious souls, each the size of its body | Liberation with infinite knowledge |
| Charvaka | Matter only | No soul apart from the body | Pleasure in this life, as its critics report it |
Sources for the table
Rao and Paranjpe (2016), sections 2.10, 3.2, 3.4, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.7; Handbook of Indian Psychology (2008): Paranjpe and Rao, pp. 255 to 258; Taylor and Sugg, pp. 247 to 249; Jha, pp. 286 to 289; Kalupahana, p. 81; Jain, pp. 55 to 58. The Mimamsa view of the self is the usual account in histories of Indian philosophy; the course books do not set it out.
Advaita Vedanta: one reality
Advaita VedantaAdvaita Vedantaअद्वैत वेदान्तAdvaita Vedāntasay: uhd-vai-tuh vay-daan-tuhLiterally: not-two; non-dualAdvaita Vedanta teaches that the true self (atman) and ultimate reality (Brahman) are one. The feeling of being a separate person comes from ignorance.Western link Often called monism. Advaita writers prefer 'non-dualism': reality is not two, but it is not described as one countable thing either.Full entry in the glossary takes its name from advaita, "not two". Its best-known teacher, ShankaraShankaraशङ्करŚaṅkarasay: shuhng-kuh-ruhIndian philosopher of the 8th century CE, the most influential teacher of Advaita Vedanta, which holds that the true self and ultimate reality are one.Full entry in the glossary, lived around the 8th century CE (traditional dates 788 to 820), and Rao and Paranjpe call Advaita "arguably the most prominent school of Indian thought".
New Sanskrit word
Brahman ब्रह्मन्
Brahman is Advaita's name for the one ultimate reality, "one single principle that accounts for the ultimate reality" (Paranjpe and Rao, 2008, p. 255). It is beyond words, so texts often describe it only by what it is not: "not so, not so". When they do describe it, they use three words together: being, consciousness and bliss, Sat Chit AnandaSat Chit Anandaसच्चिदानन्दsaccidānandasay: suht chit aa-nuhn-duhLiterally: being (sat), consciousness (cit), bliss (ānanda)Sat Chit Ananda means 'being, consciousness, bliss'. Vedanta uses it to describe Brahman and the true self, which is also the source of lasting happiness.Western link Loosely close to eudaimonic wellbeing and to peak experiences in humanistic psychology. The difference: ananda is held to be the nature of the self, not a state that comes and goes.Full entry in the glossary. Shankara supported the claim with the Vedas, with reasoning (every conscious state presupposes consciousness itself), and with direct realisation in meditation.
Nearest Western idea Close to 'the Absolute' in Western philosophy, or to God in mystical theology. The difference: in Advaita, Brahman is not separate from the self that seeks it.
New Sanskrit word
atman आत्मन्
Atman means the self. In Advaita, each person's true self is the same as Brahman: tat tvam asi, "you are that". It is pure awareness, behind every experience.
Why, then, do we feel separate? Advaita answers with images: one sun appears as many suns in the waves; the space inside a pot seems separate from the space outside it. The individual person, the jivajivaजीवjīvasay: jee-vuhLiterally: living being; from jīv-, to liveJiva means a living being: the individual self that has a body, a mind and a life story. It is the self as it lives in the world.Western link Close to 'person' or 'the embodied self' in psychology. The difference: the jiva is thought to continue across many lives.Full entry in the glossary, is the self as it appears through one body and mind. Advaita also speaks of the sakshisakshiसाक्षीsākṣīsay: saak-sheeLiterally: witness; one who sees with one's own eyesSakshi means 'witness'. It is the self as pure, uninvolved awareness that watches thoughts, feelings and actions without being caught by them.Western link Close to the 'observing self' in acceptance and commitment therapy, or to metacognitive awareness. The difference: the sakshi is held to be the real self, not a skill.Full entry in the glossary, the witness, awareness that watches thoughts without being caught by them.
Nearest Western idea Close to 'self' or 'soul'. The key difference: Western psychology studies the self as a set of thoughts and traits; atman is the conscious witness of them.
New Sanskrit word
maya माया
Maya is "the grand illusion that creates the appearance of a manifold world within a singular reality" (Paranjpe and Rao, 2008, p. 256). The translation "illusion" misleads. Advaita does not say tables, people and illnesses are fake; they are real for every practical purpose. Maya explains how one reality appears as many separate things.
Nearest Western idea Close to the gap between appearance and reality, as in Plato's cave. The difference: the world is not unreal in daily life; it is only not the final truth.
The cause of the mistake is avidyaavidyaअविद्याavidyāsay: uh-vid-yaaLiterally: not-knowing (a + vidyā)Avidya means ignorance, but not a lack of facts. It is a basic mistake about who we are, such as taking the body or mind to be the true self.Western link Close to a basic cognitive error or false belief about the self. The difference: it is not removed by new information, only by direct insight.Full entry in the glossary, usually translated "ignorance", which Paranjpe and Rao call a "primeval misconstrual": not a lack of facts, but a basic error about what we are.
A contradiction in the textbook
Rao and Paranjpe (2016) use avidya in two ways. In section 2.4 they say that in the Upanishads it "does not mean ignorance" but covers all knowledge of the changing world. In sections 5.4 and 5.7 they call it "primeval ignorance" and the root of suffering. Both uses exist. In an answer, say which text or school you mean.
Advaita fits the everyday world and the one reality together through levels. In Paranjpe and Rao's words, it "combines a monisticmonismLiterally: Greek monos, single, aloneMonism is the view that all of reality is basically one kind of thing. Materialist monism says it is all matter; idealist monism says it is all mind or spirit.Indian link Advaita Vedanta, often called monism, though its writers prefer 'non-dualism'.Full entry in the glossary metaphysicsmetaphysicsLiterally: Greek meta ta physika, 'after the Physics' (the books placed after Aristotle's Physics)Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that asks the most basic questions about reality, such as what exists, what causes what, and what a self is.Indian link darshana, a school's full view of reality.Full entry in the glossary with a dualistic epistemologyepistemologysay: i-pis-tuh-mol-uh-jeeLiterally: Greek episteme (knowledge) + logos (study)Epistemology is the study of knowledge: what it is, how we get it, and how we can tell true knowledge from false belief.Indian link pramana shastra, the study of the valid means of knowledge (pramanas).Full entry in the glossary" (2008, p. 257). In plain words: there is only one reality, but we know it in two ways, through ordinary knowledge and through higher knowledge.
Advaita's levels of reality
One reality, known in different ways. Each lower level is corrected by the one above it.
-
Ultimate reality paramarthika
Brahman alone: one reality, pure consciousness.
Known by higher knowledge (para vidya), in realisation, not by the senses.
-
Corrected from above: in realisation it is contradicted, as a dream is on waking.
Practical, everyday reality vyavaharika
The world of people, objects, work and science.
Known by lower knowledge (apara vidya). Rightly treated as true as long as it runs in order and nothing contradicts it.
-
Corrected from above: by waking up, or by a closer look.
Merely apparent reality pratibhasika
Dreams, and mirages such as water seen on a hot road.
Seems real while it lasts.
The everyday world is not called fake. It is valid for practical life, the way waking life is valid compared with a dream. Source: Paranjpe and Rao (2008), pp. 256 to 257.
The everyday level, vyavaharikavyavaharikaव्यावहारिकvyāvahārikasay: vyaa-vuh-haa-ri-kuhLiterally: relating to daily dealings (vyavahāra)Vyavaharika means the everyday or 'transactional' level of reality: the world of people, objects and science, which is real for practical life.Western link Close to Kant's world of appearances (phenomena), or to the reality that science studies. The difference: Advaita claims the higher level can be known directly.Full entry in the glossary, is the world of people, objects and science, rightly treated as true as long as nothing contradicts it. The ultimate level, paramarthikaparamarthikaपारमार्थिकpāramārthikasay: paa-ruh-maar-thi-kuhLiterally: relating to the highest truth (parama + artha)Paramarthika means the ultimate level of reality in Advaita Vedanta. At this level only Brahman, pure consciousness, is real.Western link Close to Kant's 'thing in itself' (noumenon). Kant held that it cannot be known; Advaita holds that it can be known by direct experience.Full entry in the glossary, is Brahman alone. Below both sits pratibhasikapratibhasikaप्रातिभासिकprātibhāsikasay: praa-ti-bhaa-si-kuhLiterally: belonging to mere appearanceIn Advaita Vedanta, pratibhasika is the lowest level of reality: things that only seem real for a while, such as dreams and mirages.Western link Close to illusions and hallucinations in perception research. The difference: Advaita uses them as a model for how all ordinary knowledge can be corrected.Full entry in the glossary, the merely apparent, such as a mirage or a dream. Lower knowledge (apara vidyaapara vidyaअपरा विद्याaparā vidyāsay: uh-puh-raa vid-yaaLiterally: lower knowledgeApara vidya is 'lower knowledge': knowledge of the world gained through the senses, reasoning and study, including the sciences and even the Vedas.Western link Close to empirical and rational knowledge, the kind science works with. The difference: Indian thought sees it as true but limited, not as the only kind of knowledge.Full entry in the glossary) and higher knowledge (para vidyapara vidyaपरा विद्याparā vidyāsay: puh-raa vid-yaaLiterally: higher knowledgePara vidya is 'higher knowledge': direct knowledge of ultimate reality. It is gained in deep states of consciousness, not through the senses or reasoning.Western link Close to mystical or transcendent knowledge in the psychology of religion. Mainstream psychology does not accept it as a scientific method; Indian psychologists argue that it can be trained and checked.Full entry in the glossary) match the two main levels. As Paranjpe and Rao note, this "is different from the currently popular view in psychology which, following the natural science perspective, admits no separate levels of either reality or knowledge" (2008, p. 257).
Sankhya: two realities
SankhyaSankhyaसांख्यSāṃkhyasay: saang-khyuhLiterally: enumeration, countingSankhya explains everything with two realities: pure consciousness (purusha) and nature (prakriti). In Sankhya, the mind belongs to nature, not to consciousness.Western link Close to mind-body dualism, as in Descartes. The key difference: Sankhya puts the mind on the material side; only pure consciousness is separate.Full entry in the glossary, probably the oldest system, explains everything with two ultimate realities.
New Sanskrit word
purusha पुरुष
Purusha is pure consciousness: the witness that is aware but does not act, think or change. Unlike Advaita's one Brahman, Sankhya has many purushas, one for each being (Rao and Paranjpe, 2016, section 3.4).
Nearest Western idea Close to 'pure consciousness' or the 'witness' in consciousness studies. Unlike Descartes' mind, purusha does not think; thinking belongs to matter.
New Sanskrit word
prakriti प्रकृति
Prakriti is nature: everything that is not pure consciousness. It is made of three gunasgunaगुणguṇasay: gu-nuhLiterally: strand, thread; qualityThe gunas are the three qualities that make up nature and mind: sattva (clarity), rajas (activity) and tamas (inertia). Their mix shapes personality.Western link Close to trait or temperament models of personality, such as the Big Five. The difference: the gunas also describe matter, and their balance can change with practice.Full entry in the glossary, sattvasattvaसत्त्वsay: suht-tvuhLiterally: being-ness; from sat, beingSattva is the guna of clarity, lightness and calm. A sattvic mind is clear, peaceful and ready for knowledge.Western link Close to emotional stability and openness in trait models, or to a calm, focused state. Unlike a trait, sattva is also a quality of foods and actions.Full entry in the glossary, rajasrajasरजस्say: ruh-juhsLiterally: dust, haze; the coloured or dim spaceRajas is the guna of activity, passion and restlessness. It drives desire, effort and change, and too much of it brings agitation.Western link Close to high arousal, drive or impulsivity. The difference: rajas is one part of a three-way balance, not a single scale.Full entry in the glossary and tamastamasतमस्say: tuh-muhsLiterally: darknessTamas is the guna of heaviness, dullness and inertia. It brings sleep, confusion and resistance to change.Western link Close to low arousal, inertia, or the lethargy seen in depression. The difference: tamas is also a quality of matter and of food.Full entry in the glossary, "the principles of illumination, activity, and inertia" (Taylor and Sugg, 2008, p. 247). From it unfold intellect (buddhibuddhiबुद्धिsay: bud-dhiLiterally: awakening, understanding; from budh-, to wake, to knowBuddhi is the intellect: the part of the mind that decides, judges and understands. In Sankhya it is the first and finest product of nature.Western link Close to 'intellect' or to the executive functions of decision and judgement. The key difference: in Sankhya, buddhi is material and only seems conscious because it reflects purusha.Full entry in the glossary), ego (ahamkaraahamkaraअहंकारahaṃkārasay: uh-huhng-kaa-ruhLiterally: I-maker (aham, I + kāra, maker)Ahamkara is the 'I-maker': the function that makes us feel 'I am this body and mind, and these things are mine'. In daily Hindi it means pride.Western link Often translated 'ego'. Freud's ego manages between drives and reality; ahamkara is the sense of 'I' and 'mine' that wrongly identifies with body and mind.Full entry in the glossary), mind (manasmanasमनस्say: muh-nuhsLiterally: mind; from man-, to thinkManas is the everyday mind. It receives what the senses bring, links it together, and wavers between options. It is a tool of the self, not the self.Western link Close to 'mind' as a processor of sensory input, or to attention and working memory. The key difference: manas is not conscious by itself; the self gives it awareness.Full entry in the glossary), the senses and the elements: with purusha and prakriti, twenty-five tattvastattvaतत्त्वsay: tuht-tvuhLiterally: that-ness; from tat, thatA tattva is a basic principle of reality, one of the building blocks a school uses to explain the world. Sankhya counts twenty-five of them.Western link Close to an 'ontological category' or a basic element of reality. The difference: Sankhya's list puts the mind among the material principles, not beside them.Full entry in the glossary, or basic principles.
The surprise is where the mind sits. Thinking, deciding and feeling are products of prakriti: natural processes, not consciousness.
Nearest Western idea Close to 'nature' or 'matter-energy'. The key difference: prakriti includes the mind, so thoughts and feelings are natural processes, not consciousness itself.
The gunas never work alone. Each tries to dominate the others, yet they also depend on each other and cooperate. The Sankhya Karika, the school's classical text in verse, says that they "function together ... for a purpose" (verse 13), and that prakriti "operates, in the form of the three gunas" (verse 16): everything in nature works through them. Before the world unfolds, the three are "in a state of perfect balance and equilibrium". When that balance is disturbed, "each guna competes with the others for dominance", and the unfolding of the world begins (Rao and Paranjpe, 2016, section 4.1.2). Shankara, whose other objections to Sankhya follow below, asked: "How is this equilibrium disturbed?"
Some teachers call the gunas "the operating system of prakriti". That is a modern analogy, not a classical one. It fits the idea that everything in nature runs through the gunas. Its limit is that an operating system is separate from the machine it runs, while prakriti does not exist apart from its gunas.
The verses quoted
The verses are quoted from Raghavan Iyer's English translation of the Sankhya Karika (Hermes, September 1987). Verse 12 gives the three gunas the work of "illumination, activity and restraint". Verse 13 also compares the gunas to a lamp, and verse 16 compares prakriti to water. The classical commentaries explain these two images. This guide leaves them out, because those commentaries were not checked for this unit. Rao and Paranjpe (2016, section 3.4) report Shankara's objection. The perspectives page explains the gunas as qualities of personality.
Purusha and prakriti never act on each other. They travel together only by being near, like the lame man who can see and the blind man who can walk in an old Sankhya story. The Sankhya Karika even says that no purusha "is bound, no one released": it is nature, not consciousness, that is caught and freed. Shankara objected: how can unconscious nature produce an ordered world, and how can two utterly different realities affect each other if they never interact?
Yoga: the same map, used for practice
Patanjali'sPatanjaliपतञ्जलिPatañjalisay: puh-tuhn-juh-liThe compiler of the Yoga Sutras, a short classical text on training the mind. Most scholars date it to the 1st or 2nd century CE, and no later than the 5th century.Full entry in the glossary Yoga shares Sankhya's picture of reality. It adds IshvaraIshvaraईश्वरĪśvarasay: eesh-vuh-ruhLiterally: lord, master (īś-, to rule)Ishvara means 'the Lord' or God. In Patanjali's Yoga, Ishvara is a special self, never touched by affliction or karma, and devotion to Ishvara supports practice.Western link Close to 'God' in theism. The difference: in Yoga, Ishvara is a model and a help for practice, not a creator or judge.Full entry in the glossary, a special purusha; devotion to Ishvara is a practice, not worship of a creator. The goal is kaivalyakaivalyaकैवल्यsay: kai-vuhl-yuhLiterally: aloneness, isolation (kevala, alone)Kaivalya is the final goal of Sankhya and Yoga: the 'aloneness' of pure consciousness (purusha), freed from all mixing with mind and matter.Western link No close match. It loosely resembles 'pure awareness' or witness consciousness, but kaivalya is a lasting freedom, not a passing state.Full entry in the glossary, reached by stilling the mind (chittachittaचित्तcittasay: chit-tuhLiterally: that which is noticed; mind (cit-, to perceive)Chitta is the whole field of the mind in Yoga, including thoughts, feelings and stored impressions. Yoga aims to calm its movements.Western link Close to 'the mind' as a whole, including the unconscious store of memories. The difference: chitta is still material; consciousness (purusha) gives it awareness.Full entry in the glossary) so that a clear, sattvic intellect reflects pure consciousness. Taylor and Sugg (2008) note that most Western yoga teaching reads "yoga" as "union", a Vedanta idea, while the commentator Bhoja Raja said that for Patanjali it means separation: telling consciousness apart from nature.
Nyaya and Vaisheshika: a real world of many things
These schools merged by the 10th century CE because "both the systems believed in Realism and in Plurality of the Reality" (Jha, 2008, p. 287). The world we experience is real and exists whether or not anyone knows it, and it is plural from the start. Vaisheshika sorted everything into categories, with nine kinds of substance (earth, water, fire, air, ether, time, space, self and mind), and built physical things from partless atoms. The self is many and eternal, known by inference from desire, aversion, effort, pleasure, pain and cognition. But consciousness is not its nature: it arises only when a mind is present to show it. Nyaya accepted four pramanaspramanaप्रमाणpramāṇasay: pruh-maa-nuhLiterally: means of right knowledge; measure (pra + mā-, to measure)A pramana is a valid means of knowledge: a reliable way to know that something is true, such as perception or inference.Western link Close to a 'source of knowledge' in epistemology. Indian lists include testimony and, in some schools, yogic perception, which Western science does not count.Full entry in the glossary, or means of valid knowledge: perception, inference, comparison and testimony. Vaisheshika, on the usual account, kept only the first two. Their realism is close to that of everyday science.
Mimamsa: duty first
Mimamsa interpreted the Vedas' commands about ritual and duty. It accepted a real world and, on most accounts, a lasting self, and it needed no God: actions bring results through an unseen force (adrsta).
Early Buddhism: no lasting self
the Buddhathe Buddhaबुद्धBuddhasay: bud-dhuhLiterally: the awakened oneThe teacher whose teachings became Buddhism. He lived in north India, probably in the 5th century BCE, and taught a path out of suffering through ethics, meditation and insight.Full entry in the glossary started from change. Everything that arises from conditions is impermanent, aniccaaniccaअनिच्चsay: uh-nich-chuhLiterally: not lasting (Sanskrit a + nitya)Anicca means impermanence: everything that arises also passes away. In Buddhism it is the first of the three marks of existence.Western link Close to Heraclitus' idea that 'everything flows', and to process views of the mind. The difference: seeing impermanence is meant to free a person from clinging.Full entry in the glossary: all Buddhist schools accept "that all causally conditioned phenomena, including persons, are impermanent" (Duerlinger, 2008, p. 130).
New Pali word
anatta अनत्ता
Anatta (Sanskrit anatman) means "no-self": there is no lasting, unchanging self behind our experiences. Early Buddhism analysed the person into five changing groups, the skandhasskandhaस्कन्धsay: skuhn-dhuhLiterally: heap, bundle; trunkThe skandhas are the five 'heaps' that make up a person in Buddhism: body, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness.Western link Close to a model of the mind in parts: body, affect, perception, motivation and awareness. The difference: the list is used to show that there is no self beyond the parts.Full entry in the glossary: material form, feeling, perception, dispositions (also translated "mental formations") and consciousness. None of them is a lasting "I". Kalupahana writes that the analysis "was intended to demonstrate the absence of a permanent and eternal self" (2008, p. 81). Suffering comes from craving and from clinging to a false "me" and "mine".
Nearest Western idea Close to David Hume's 'bundle' view of the self, and to modern views of the self as something the brain constructs. The difference: anatta is meant to be seen in meditation, and seeing it frees from suffering.
Things hang together through pratityasamutpadapratityasamutpadaप्रतीत्यसमुत्पादpratītyasamutpādasay: pruh-tee-tyuh-suh-mut-paa-duhLiterally: arising in dependence (pratītya + samutpāda)Pratityasamutpada means 'dependent origination': everything arises because of conditions and ends when they end. Nothing exists by itself alone.Western link Close to systems thinking, and to the idea that mental events have many interacting causes. The difference: its purpose is to show how suffering can end.Full entry in the glossary, dependent origination: "When that exists, this comes to be" (Kalupahana, 2008, p. 74). The chain runs from ignorance to "this entire mass of suffering". The Buddha preferred verbs to nouns, saying "is conscious" rather than "consciousness", so that mental activities would not be turned into things. Rebirth continues without a soul, as a chain of karmic traces. Later schools disagreed: some were realists, Yogacara taught a "store-consciousness" holding past traces, and Madhyamaka taught emptiness, that nothing has a fixed nature of its own.
Jainism: living souls and a many-sided world
The tradition of MahaviraMahaviraमहावीरMahāvīrasay: muh-haa-vee-ruhLiterally: great heroThe great teacher of Jainism, a contemporary of the Buddha, usually dated to the 6th or 5th century BCE.Full entry in the glossary, Jainism's last great teacher, recognises two kinds of reality: jivajivaजीवjīvasay: jee-vuhLiterally: living being; from jīv-, to liveJiva means a living being: the individual self that has a body, a mind and a life story. It is the self as it lives in the world.Western link Close to 'person' or 'the embodied self' in psychology. The difference: the jiva is thought to continue across many lives.Full entry in the glossary, living and conscious souls, and ajivaajivaअजीवajīvasay: uh-jee-vuhLiterally: not living (a + jīva)In Jainism, ajiva is everything that is not alive or conscious: matter, space, time, and the conditions that allow motion and rest.Western link Close to 'matter', the non-mental side in dualist philosophy. Unlike Western matter, Jain ajiva includes karma as a fine physical substance.Full entry in the glossary, the non-living (matter, space, time, and the conditions for motion and rest). Each soul is conscious by nature and the size of its body. Karmakarmaकर्मsay: kuhr-muhLiterally: action, deed; from kṛ-, to doKarma means action, and also the result that every action brings back to the person who did it, in this life or a later one.Western link Close to moral causation, or 'you reap what you sow'. The difference: in most schools karma is an impersonal law that works across lives; theistic schools say God oversees it, but even there it is not a judge's verdict on a single life.Full entry in the glossary here is literally "a kind of matter" that clings to the soul. Jain writers criticise Advaita for making the world less than real, and materialism for denying the soul. Jainism's doctrine of many-sidedness, anekantavadaanekantavadaअनेकान्तवादanekāntavādasay: uh-nay-kaan-tuh-vaa-duhLiterally: doctrine of not-one-sidednessAnekantavada is the Jain teaching that reality has many sides. Any single view captures only part of the truth.Western link Close to perspectivism, the idea that knowledge depends on standpoint. Unlike strong relativism, Jains hold that there is one reality, seen from many sides.Full entry in the glossary, is explained on the worldview page.
Charvaka: matter only
The Charvaka school, also called Lokayata, held that "matter is the only reality, and sense perception is the only valid means of knowledge or proof" (Handbook glossary, 2008, p. 613). It is closest to Western materialismmaterialismMaterialism, or physicalism, is the view that only matter and physical forces are real. On this view, the mind is a product of the brain.Indian link Charvaka (Lokayata) materialism. Sankhya partly agrees, because it treats the mind as material, but it adds purusha.Full entry in the glossary, but it accepted perception only, while science depends on inference. Rao and Paranjpe note that materialism was "adopted by only a small minority of thinkers" in India (2016, p. 25). Treat the usual picture of Charvakas as pleasure-seekers with care: their own texts are lost, and we know them mainly through their opponents.
The self across the schools
For Advaita, Sankhya-Yoga and Jainism, the self is consciousness itself. For Nyaya-Vaisheshika and Ramanuja's Vedanta, consciousness is a quality of the self that needs a mind to show itself. Buddhism denies a lasting self (Rao and Paranjpe, 2016, section 5.7). Unit 3 studies the self in depth.
Try this
In a class test (an invented example), Sameer writes: 'The Indian worldview is holistic and non-dualist. Unlike Descartes, Indian thinkers never split reality into two.' His teacher marks the sentence as half right.
Using at least three schools from this page, explain what is wrong with Sameer's sentence, what is right in it, and how he could rewrite it.
Show the reasoning
Sameer's sentence treats one school as the whole of Indian thought. Sankhya is openly dualist: it splits reality into pure consciousness (purusha) and nature (prakriti), and Yoga shares that map. Jainism also divides reality into two kinds, living souls (jiva) and the non-living (ajiva). Nyaya-Vaisheshika is not dualist but pluralist: it counts many real substances, from atoms to selves. Charvaka held that only matter is real, and early Buddhism denied any lasting substance at all. So "Indian thinkers never split reality into two" is false.
What is right is that Advaita Vedanta is non-dualist: its name means "not two", and it holds that Brahman alone is ultimately real. Sameer also has a point about Descartes, but for the wrong reason. Even Sankhya's dualism differs from Descartes', because Sankhya puts the mind with matter and keeps only consciousness apart. A better sentence would be: "Advaita Vedanta is non-dualist, but Sankhya and Jainism are dualist and Nyaya-Vaisheshika is pluralist; even Sankhya's dualism differs from Descartes', because it places the mind on the side of matter." The worldview page has a claim check on this kind of East and West contrast.
States of consciousness and layers of the person
Two Upanishadic models appear in almost every book on Indian psychology: one about states of consciousness, one about the layers of the person.
The four states
New Sanskrit word
turiya तुरीय
Everyone knows waking, dreaming and deep sleep. The short Mandukya UpanishadUpanishadउपनिषद्Upaniṣadsay: u-puh-ni-shuhdLiterally: sitting down near (a teacher); upa + ni + sadThe Upanishads are philosophical texts at the end of the Vedas. They ask what the self is and how it relates to the whole of reality.Western link Sometimes compared to Plato's dialogues, because they teach through questions and conversation. The key difference: their aim is direct experience of the self, not only a sound argument.Full entry in the glossary adds a fourth, called simply turiya, "the Fourth", in which "the true Self is directly experienced" (Rao and Paranjpe, 2016, section 2.4). The text describes it by what it is not: "not that which cognizes the internal (objects), not that which cognizes the external (objects), not what cognizes both of them" (Mandukya Upanishad 7, as translated in Paranjpe and Rao, 2008, p. 257). In AdvaitaAdvaita Vedantaअद्वैत वेदान्तAdvaita Vedāntasay: uhd-vai-tuh vay-daan-tuhLiterally: not-two; non-dualAdvaita Vedanta teaches that the true self (atman) and ultimate reality (Brahman) are one. The feeling of being a separate person comes from ignorance.Western link Often called monism. Advaita writers prefer 'non-dualism': reality is not two, but it is not described as one countable thing either.Full entry in the glossary, turiya is not a fourth room beside the others but the awareness present in all three.
Nearest Western idea Close to 'pure consciousness' or 'minimal phenomenal experience' in consciousness research. The difference: turiya is said to be the true self, not a brain state.
The ordinary states are waking (jagratjagratजाग्रत्jāgratsay: jaa-gruhtLiterally: waking (jāgṛ-, to be awake)Jagrat is the waking state of consciousness, in which we know the outer world through the senses. It is the first of the three ordinary states.Western link Close to ordinary waking consciousness in psychology. The difference: Vedanta does not treat waking as more 'real' than dreaming in any final sense.Full entry in the glossary), dreaming (svapnasvapnaस्वप्नsay: svuhp-nuhLiterally: sleep, dreamSvapna is the dream state, in which the mind creates its own world from stored impressions while the senses are at rest.Western link Close to 'dreaming' and REM sleep research. The difference: the Indian interest is in what dreams show about consciousness, not in hidden wishes, as in Freud.Full entry in the glossary) and deep sleep (sushuptisushuptiसुषुप्तिsuṣuptisay: su-shup-tiLiterally: deep sleepSushupti is deep, dreamless sleep. The mind is at rest, yet on waking we say 'I slept well', which Vedanta takes as a sign that awareness was still present.Western link Close to deep, non-REM sleep. The difference: Western science usually treats deep sleep as a loss of consciousness; Vedanta treats it as consciousness without objects.Full entry in the glossary). The thinker Gaudapada, whose date is uncertain, developed the idea, and Shankara treated the Mandukya as the essence of Advaita.
The four states of consciousness in the Mandukya Upanishad
Three ordinary states that everyone knows, and a fourth that the text says lies beneath them all.
State 1
Waking jagrat
- Attention
- Turned outward
- What is known
- Outer objects, through the senses
- Sound of Om
- A
State 2
Dreaming svapna
- Attention
- Turned inward
- What is known
- Inner images the mind makes from stored impressions
- Sound of Om
- U
State 3
Deep sleep sushupti
- Attention
- Neither
- What is known
- No objects at all; a kind of peace
- Sound of Om
- M
The Fourth turiya
Not turned inward or outward. No object, no content. Described only by what it is not. In Advaita it is the true self, the awareness present in all three states above. It matches the silence that follows the sound.
The Upanishad links the states to the parts of the sacred sound Om (A, U, M). Sources: Rao and Paranjpe (2016), section 2.4; Paranjpe and Rao (2008), pp. 257 to 258.
Paranjpe and Rao (2008, p. 258) draw out two claims. First, turiya has no object, while Western psychology since Franz Brentano has often held that consciousness is always about something. Second, it differs from deep sleep: deep sleep can be described ("I slept well") and leaves the self unchanged, while turiya is beyond description and transforms the ego.
The five sheaths
New Sanskrit word
pancha kosha पञ्चकोश
The Taittiriya Upanishad (2.1 to 2.5) describes the person as five layers, each a koshakoshaकोशkośasay: ko-shuhLiterally: sheath, covering; treasuryA kosha is a 'sheath' or layer of the person. Vedanta describes five, from the physical body on the outside to bliss at the core.Western link Close to layered models of the person, such as body, emotion, thought and spirit. The difference: the deepest self is not a layer at all; it is what the layers cover.Full entry in the glossary or sheath, from the body made of food on the outside to bliss inside: "five layers nested in one another, like the concentric sheaths of an onion" (Paranjpe and Rao, 2008, p. 266). The true self sits at the centre but is not itself a sheath. In Advaita the sheaths cover and limit the self.
Nearest Western idea Close to holistic or biopsychosocial models of the person. The difference: it adds a layer of bliss and places the true self beyond all five.
The five sheaths of the person (pancha kosha)
From the outside in, each layer is subtler than the one around it. The self at the centre is not one of the layers.
Paranjpe and Rao (2008) compare the layers to "the concentric sheaths of an onion" (p. 266). Only the first two layers are concrete things; the rest are constructs (Bhawuk, 2008, p. 397).
Why this matters for a psychologist
- In research. A school's answer about what is real decides what counts as data. Sankhya's claim that thinking and feeling are natural processes makes them open to study. A claim about turiya, a state without content, cannot be checked from outside, so a researcher can study only reports of it and their effects.
- In counselling and education. The idea of watching thoughts without being caught by them, Advaita's witness and Sankhya's split between consciousness and the mind, returns in the meditation practices of Unit 5. Knowing which school an idea comes from helps you see what a modern programme has kept and what it has left out.
- In reading the textbooks. When a book says "the Indian view of the self" or "the Indian view of reality", ask which school it means. Advaita, Sankhya, Nyaya-Vaisheshika, Buddhism, Jainism and Charvaka give different answers.
Try this
Ritika, a first-year student in Mysore (an invented example), dreams that she has failed her psychology exam and wakes up frightened, then relieved. At breakfast Arjun says the dream was 'not real'. Meera replies, 'It was real while it lasted. How do you know waking life is any more real?'
How would Advaita Vedanta, Nyaya-Vaisheshika and early Buddhism each judge the reality of Ritika's dream and of her waking world?
Show the reasoning
Advaita places the dream at the merely apparent level (pratibhasika): it seemed real until waking corrected it. Waking life belongs to the practical level (vyavaharika), valid for everyday purposes. But Advaita partly agrees with Meera: in realisation, waking life too is seen as limited, as a dream is on waking. Only Brahman is ultimately real.
Nyaya-Vaisheshika sides with Arjun. The waking world is simply real and exists whether anyone knows it or not; it would most likely treat the dream as a real experience that matched nothing in the world, an error of knowing rather than a lower level of reality. Early Buddhism shifts the question. Dream and waking experience are both changing, conditioned processes, and neither shows a lasting self. The useful question is what conditions produced Ritika's fear, and whether clinging to it causes suffering.