We all have sometime or the other wondered in our lives as to why we did what we did, even though we really did not want to; or why did we not do something that was expected to be done, even though we wanted to, just like the ṛṣi in taittirīyopaniṣad who regrets – 

The answer lies in the truth that Sri Krishna reveals to a confused and curious Arjuna who asks,

अथ केन प्रयुक्तोऽयं पापं चरति पूरुष: ।

अनिच्छन्नपि वार्ष्णेय बलादिव नियोजित: ॥

atha kena prayukto’yaṁ pāpaṁ carati pūruṣaḥ ।

anicchannapi vārṣṇeya balādiva niyojitaḥ ॥

(भगवद्गीता bhagavadgītā 3.36)

‘O descendent of Vrishni (Krishna), what impels man to commit sin, even against his will, constrained as if it were forced?’

Sri Krishna explains that driven by a guṇa or inherent quality called ‘rajas’ that creates insatiable desires – ‘kāma’ and sinful anger – ‘krodha’, the person is inclined to commit wrong acts.

Sri Krishna mentions no one can stay in this world without performing actions even for a moment, and all actions are undertaken by these inherent qualities in oneself; but a person unaware of them thinks that he or she does all the activities on his or her own accord.

प्रकृते: क्रियमाणानि गुणै: कर्माणि सर्वश: ।

अहङ्कारविमूढात्मा कर्ताहमिति मन्यते ॥

prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ ।

ahaṅkāravimūḍhātmā kartāhamiti manyate ॥

(भगवद्गीता bhagavadgītā 3.27)

‘All activities are carried out by the three modes (guṇas) of material nature (prakṛti). But in ignorance, one with the understanding deluded by false identification with the body, thinks itself to be the doer.’

So today, we are here to learn about these guṇas that seemingly persuade people to do various things in various ways, leading to varied consequences of such actions. And what are the consequences of each of these guṇas which are the inborn and inherent qualities that constitute one’s nature and thereby influence one’s thoughts, beliefs, and behaviour.

Bhagawan Sri Krishna explains in detail about the three types of guṇas in the fourteenth chapter of guṇa traya vibhāga yoga when He says, “O mighty-armed Arjuna, the material energy consists of three guṇas (modes) – sattva (goodness), rajas (passion), and tamas (ignorance). These modes bind the eternal soul to the perishable body.”

सत्त्वं रजस्तम इति गुणा: प्रकृतिसम्भवा: ।

निबध्नन्ति महाबाहो देहे देहिनमव्ययम् ॥

sattvaṁ rajastama iti guṇāḥ prakṛtisambhavāḥ ।

nibadhnanti mahābāho dehe dehinamavyayam ॥

(भगवद्गीता bhagavadgītā 14.5)

‘O mighty-armed (Arjuna), sattva, rajas and tamas – these guṇas, born of prakṛti, bind fast the indestructible embodied one within the body.’

All the beings are bound by three kinds of qualities which guide all their behaviour, and these are sattva – which is a state of selfless serenity suffused with knowledge, rajas – denoted by a state of selfish activity driven by passion, and tamas – a state of inertia dominated by ignorance and instincts.

You may compare them with a golden chain, a silver chain, and an iron chain. While the quality of the chains may be different, all of them can bind the prisoner down. The pure and noble qualities of sattva though are better of the lot, they still bind the person with a sense of happiness and knowledge like a gold chain. The rājasic qualities are like the silver chain that bind the soul through attachment to fruitive actions. And tāmasic qualities are like the iron chain that tether the soul of all living beings through negligence, laziness, and sleep.

Sri Krishna says, sattva binds one to material happiness; rajas conditions the soul towards action; and tamas clouds wisdom and binds one to delusion.

सत्त्वं सुखे सञ्जयति रज: कर्मणि भारत ।

ज्ञानमावृत्य तु तम: प्रमादे सञ्जयत्युत ॥

sattvaṁ sukhe sañjayati rajaḥ karmaṇi bhārata ।

jñānamāvṛtya tu tamaḥ pramāde sañjayatyuta ॥

(भगवद्गीता bhagavadgītā 14.9)

The interesting part is that all beings, the most meritorious to the most sinful, have all the three qualities within them. However, their nature and behaviour are defined by the qualities which is most predominant in them. A good person is largely good because most of the time he or she is guided by sāttvic qualities leading to pure and noble thoughts, words, and deeds. Whereas a bad person is largely dominated by the selfish rājasic qualities, and thus is not inclined towards the welfare of others. Sri Krishna says that it’s the dominance of one quality over the other, that makes people behave in different ways.

रजस्तमश्चाभिभूय सत्त्वं भवति भारत ।

रज: सत्त्वं तमश्चैव तम: सत्त्वं रजस्तथा ॥

rajastamaścābhibhūya sattvaṁ bhavati bhārata ।

rajaḥ sattvaṁ tamaścaiva tamaḥ sattvaṁ rajastathā ॥

(भगवद्गीता bhagavadgītā 14.10)

‘O scion of Bharata, sometimes sattva (goodness) prevails over rajas (passion) and tamas (ignorance). Sometimes rajas dominates sattva and tamas, and at other times tamas overcomes sattva and rajas.’

The animal kingdom is largely dominated by the tāmasic qualities of survival instincts, whereas human societies in general is largely seen to be rājasic in nature. However, the best of humans, who are almost Divine-like are driven by sāttvic qualities. Having been born a human, one may end up behaving like an animal due to tamas, or elevate oneself to divine heights through sattva, or simply oscillate between resultant gains and losses of one’s actions as a human. This is what the eighteenth śloka of the fourteenth chapter reveals,

ऊर्ध्वं गच्छन्ति सत्त्वस्था मध्ये तिष्ठन्ति राजसा: ।

जघन्यगुणवृत्तिस्था अधो गच्छन्ति तामसा: ॥

ūrdhvaṁ gacchanti sattvasthā madhye tiṣṭhanti rājasāḥ ।

jaghanyaguṇavṛittisthā adho gacchanti tāmasāḥ ॥

(भगवद्गीता bhagavadgītā 14.18)

‘Those situated in the sattva (mode of goodness) rise upward; those in the rajas (mode of passion) stay in the middle; and those in the tamas (mode of ignorance), the lowest guṇa, go downward.’

A good example of this behaviour is in the three Lankan brothers from rāmāyaṇa. Though they were born in the same family yet behaved differently. The youngest brother Vibheeshana was sāttvic in nature and thus he disassociated himself from Ravana and sided with Sri Rama, the very embodiment of goodness. The eldest of them was Ravana, who driven by passion and desire had abducted the wife of Sri Rama, and thus his rājasic nature caused his ruin. The middle brother Kumbhakarna was dominated by tamas and thus slept for half the year and ate during the other half while awake, much like certain animals that hibernate. No wonder we see humans behave in all kinds of ways, sometimes worse than animals and at the other times almost like divine.

So, what is the way out? Does one need to give up all these qualities? Well, if one gives up tamas then one may not be able to even sleep like most of the hyperactive and distressed people who suffer from insomnia, or if one gives up rajas then all the activities in the society, be it agriculture, industry, trade, or business may come to a standstill. And now that we know that even sattva binds one’s soul to the world, giving up noble and good deeds for the welfare of others would lead to further worsening of societies.

What does the sanātana dharma say about how to lead one’s life in a way that one can be useful and active in the world, yet not be bound? The obvious answer is to transcend all the guṇas and establish oneself in the transcendental state of non-qualified divinity – ‘guṇātīta’, where one is unaffected by the actions of the world and the dualities of consequences that arise therefrom. But like many good things, this too is easier said than done.

However, to begin with there is an easier middle path of ‘balance’ as proposed by Sri Krishna, wherein one needs to moderate one’s life into a sense of balance between rest, action, and spiritual pursuits; in other words, balance between the three qualities.

युक्ताहारविहारस्य युक्तचेष्टस्य कर्मसु ।

युक्तस्वप्नावबोधस्य योगो भवति दु:खहा ॥

yuktāhāravihārasya yuktaceṣṭasya karmasu ।

yuktasvapnāvabodhasya yogo bhavati duḥkhahā ॥

(भगवद्गीता bhagavadgītā 6.17)

‘To the one who is moderate in eating and recreation, in the effort for action, and in sleeping and waking, yoga becomes the destroyer of misery.’

In fact, if we look at 24-hours in a day, the entire time is divided into three parts of eight hours each, dominated by one of these qualities. The morning four hours between 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. are sāttvic, and so also the evening four hours of 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., totalling to eight hours or one third of the day. This is the time that needs to be spent in spiritual pursuits of prayers and austerities. The eight hours between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. are rājasic in nature and this time should be engaged in activities of the world, be it pursuing one’s passion or profession or simply eking out a livelihood. The eight hours between 8.00 p.m. to 4.00 a.m. are tāmasic, and must be spent in resting and relaxing, which would regenerate the body and rejuvenate the mind for the next day.

Thus, to begin with a balance is a must, and then eventually one needs to transcend all the guṇas to attain a spiritual state of oneness with the Divine, where one ceases to identify oneself with the body and mind and attains the awareness of brahman as a mere witness of all actions without being affected by anything. This nature of a ‘guṇnātīta’ – the one who has attained this highest state of transcendence is defined by Sri Krishna as:

समदु:खसुख: स्वस्थ: समलोष्टाश्मकाञ्चन: ।

तुल्यप्रियाप्रियो धीरस्तुल्यनिन्दात्मसंस्तुति: ॥

मानापमानयोस्तुल्यस्तुल्यो मित्रारिपक्षयो: ।

सर्वारम्भपरित्यागी गुणातीत: स उच्यते ॥

samaduḥkhasukhaḥ svasthaḥ samaloṣṭāśmakāñcanaḥ ।

tulyapriyāpriyo dhīrastulyanindātmasanstutiḥ ॥

mānāpamānayostulyastulyo mitrāripakṣayoḥ ।

sarvārambhaparityāgī guṇātītaḥ sa ucyate ॥

(भगवद्गीता bhagavadgītā 14.24-25)

‘Those who are alike in happiness and distress; who are established in the Self; who look upon a clod, a stone, and a piece of gold as of equal value; who remain the same amidst pleasant and unpleasant events; who are firm or intelligent; who accept both blame and praise with equanimity; who remain the same in honour and dishonour; who treat both friend and foe alike; and who have relinquished all undertakings – are said to have risen beyond the three guṇas.’

And the final and highest kind of happiness that one can pursue is that of pure bliss, represented by ānandamayakośa or the sheath of bliss. This is experienced only by those who have transcended the carnal cravings of the flesh – striving for one’s strength and supremacy over the others, desires of the mind for mutual company and incessant chasing of intellectual pleasures of scholarship. This is only for those sage-like-beings who have ascended to the state of pure existence where they are able to love all unconditionally after having renounced the selfish motivations of the lower kinds of happiness. This happiness is lasting and eternal, for it does not depend on anything or anyone. This springs forth from a fountain of joy deep within oneself, where there is no selfishness and self-interest. This is the highest quality of happiness wherein one hoards nothing but shares everything, one takes nothing but gives everything, one asks for nothing but offers everything.

The same concept can be easily compared with Maslow’s ‘Hierarchy of Needs’, starting with the basic physiological needs represented by annamayakośa, to safety needs indicated by prāṇamayakośa, to social needs similar to manomayakośa, to esteem needs comparable to vijñānamayakośa, to self-actualisation needs akin to ānandamayakośa. The idea of self-actualisation according to Maslow is the fullest expression of one’s capacities, and in sanātana dharma, the truest and fullest expression of human potential is to realise one’s divinity. That’s when one finds true happiness and fulfilment, which is eternal.

Another way to look at it is that different kinds of people were pursuing different kinds of happiness – śūdra or the service-class were happy with food and physical pleasures, whereas the kṣatriya who by their very nature were warriors, rulers and administrators, derived joy from authority, power, and protection above physical pleasures. The vaiśya or traders were happy only if they were wealthy and socially respected, whereas brāhmaṇa or the intellectual-class found happiness in erudite pursuits of all kinds of knowledge. However, above all were saints and sages, who having purified their bodies, minds and intellects, transcended them, and instead derived the highest joy from Self-Realisation.

The kind of happiness that one can pursue is up to oneself. However, if one must invest one’s time and energies to find lasting happiness, sanātana dharma guides one to seek the truth of one’s own self as Divine and thereby attain the supreme, unsullied, eternal state of purest happiness. The verse from kaṭhopaniṣad declares that it’s only to them the eternal happiness belongs, who perceive the Self within, which otherwise is manifold in the creation outside.

एको वशी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा एकं रूपं बहुधा यः करोति ।
तमात्मस्थं येऽनुपश्यन्ति धीरास्तेषां सुखं शाश्वतं नेतरेषाम् ॥

eko vaśī sarvabhūtāntarātmā ekaṁ rūpaṁ bahudhā yaḥ karoti ।
tamātmasthaṁ ye’nupaśyanti dhīrāsteṣāṁ sukhaṁ śāśvataṁ netareṣām ॥

कठोपनिषत् kaṭhopaniṣad 2.2.12

(That) One (Supreme) controller, the soul of all beings, who makes His one single form manifold – those wise men who perceive Him as existing in their own hearts, to them belongs eternal happiness, and to none else.

The bhāgavata describes nine kinds of devotion that ultimately culminates in ātmanivedana or self-surrender; just as a river would merge into the ocean, devotion leads to merger of the mind of the devotee in the Divine, thus wiping away the difference of duality. While the nāradabhaktisūtras defines devotion as the highest kind of love for the Divine that ultimately leads one to a state of satisfaction and immortality beyond the desires of the mind, Sri Adi Shankaracharya in his vivekacūḍāmaṇi describes that of all the ways to attain realisation, devotion is the supreme one (bhaktireva garīyasī) as it leads to the search of the true Self within – ‘svasvarūpānusandhānam’. Thus, the path of supreme devotion leads one to divinity. This bhakti can be to a personal God – saguṇa sākāra bhakti or to an impersonal universal God – nirguṇa nirākāra bhakti; either way it leads one to the supreme realisation of the Self as Divine.

The jñāna mārga or the path of knowledge is often the most difficult and misunderstood one. Many think that it has to do with certain strict austerities and meditative practices in extreme living conditions, while others think it’s about reading scriptural truths and being initiated by a guru who would guide the path of certain spiritual practices. Yet others equate it with certain yogic and tantric practices that involve rituals, postures and techniques which require tremendous practice and perfection. However, jñāna mārga as per Sri Adi Shankaracharya is simply the path of discrimination and detachment – using viveka to analyse and segregate the real from the unreal and then being able to reject the unreal and accept only the real, is the way of wisdom. The same path is taught by Sri Krishna as buddhi yoga in the bhagavadgītā. Let me explain.

The advaita philosophy propounds that the various names and forms are superimpositions on the one reality of brahman, like the various pictures are projected on the screen. The projections cannot exist without a screen due to their dependent existence, and thus they are unreal. The same applies to the world around us which depends on the consciousness of brahman, to be perceived through the mind and senses. brahman exists independently, whereas all else depends on brahman; so, brahman alone is real and all else is unreal, is the essence of the path of knowledge – ‘brahma satyaṁ jaganmithyā’. This understanding comes from learning the truths as taught by the scriptures or from a guru who has realised the truth, and then continuously meditating upon this thought with a focused mind until one is able to comprehend the truth as an existential experience. It’s only for this reason that scriptural studies are advised, and contemplation on the truth, under the guidance of a guru in solitude away from societal activities is recommended. However, the truth can be meditated upon at all times by the one who is eager and focused, be it in a forest or at home. The path is that of ātmavicāra or discriminative contemplation. Sri Ramana Maharishi would encourage the seekers to ask the question – ‘Who am I?’ – and then gradually discriminate and discard the dependent senses, body and the mind only to realise that one’s independent and eternal existence as divinity alone is true. This is like removing the veil that covers the mirror – āvaraṇa – and being able to see the reflection clearly. This is the path taught by the upaniṣads, the highest philosophy of the vedas.

All the paths ultimately lead to the knowledge of the Self in which one becomes the very Self. muṇḍakopaniṣad says – brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati – the knower of brahman becomes brahman. At that point in Self-Realisation, the knowledge, the process of knowing and the knower of the Self all become one, as told by aṣṭāvakragītā (jñānaṁ jñeyaṁ tathā jñātā). The ultimate knowledge is the destination of all paths and it is one and the same, irrespective of the paths. This in-built flexibility within sanātana dharma is what makes it the most practical and pursuable way of life.

We shall discuss this in the next article.

The most important part of the gurukula system was that even though aparā vidyā differed from pupil to pupil, and naturally so as different students came from different varṇāśrama and had to be taught the subjects that best suited their tendencies and dispositions, parā vidyā was same for all. A brāhmaṇa had the obligation to learn how to perform certain ceremonies and rituals, whereas a kṣatriya had a duty to learn the art of warfare and administration. Likewise, it was imperative for a vaiśya or tradesmen to learn commerce and economics, and the śūdra or artisans were to be taught certain skills like agriculture, weaving, pottery or smelting according to their likes. But the common knowledge that was to be taught to all was parā vidyā – the spiritual knowledge – that would enable them to successfully wade through the world and the various āśrama dharmas to finally renounce and achieve mokṣa.

The entire education was completely free and a ‘gurudakṣiṇā’ would be given to the guru as a mark of gratitude at the time of graduation. This too was done based on one’s own capacity. For instance, a farmer’s son may give a few bags of their farm produce, a businessman’s son may offer some materials, a king’s son may offer gold, land and cattle, so also a śūdra’s son may offer some of their crafts and implements for the use of the āśrama. Thus, each expressed their gratitude to the guru and the gurukula in their own way, and there was no such thing like capitation fee, tuition fee, science lab fee, sports fee, examination fee and of course transportation fee; for all lived in the gurukula itself unlike today. This ensured that there were no financial barriers to education and the sustenance of the gurukula fell upon the shoulders of the entire society and not just the parents of the pupils.

Another very important aspect was that the guru would assess and understand the child’s inherent qualities and irrespective of the varṇāśrama in which the child was born. He would encourage and mould the child according to his tendencies and innate talents. Thus, people who would excel at a certain field of knowledge, could be classified differently from their class at birth. Today, the only reason why a farmer’s child would want to be a doctor or a doctor’s child would want to be a politician, is largely due to material considerations and not their inherent abilities. But this wasn’t the case back then.

However, the most important difference in education between then and now is that, today only the lower material knowledge is being imparted to the students with the sole aim of making them capable of earning a decent living. But, the need for teaching them greater truths of life which will mould them into better humans and eventually divine is completely ignored. The commoditisation of education has created a dangerous divide of haves and have-nots, and student loans have become debt traps.

Many educators, philosophers and thinkers, from Swami Vivekananda to Mahatma Gandhi, have time and again insisted upon a holistic system of education, and fortunately even today certain institutions are providing such education. Sri Sathya Sai Loka Seva Gurukulams based on the philosophy of Sri Sathya Sai Baba, who said that, ‘Education is for life and not for living’, thus amalgamating aparā and parā vidyā into free gurukula based education system, is bringing back the glorious ideals of the ancient education system as propounded by sanātana dharma.

We shall discuss this in the next article.

In the very beginning, this system was rather very flexible and not rigid. Based on people’s inherent qualities, one could move between the categories and thus could pursue one’s interests in life and hone one’s skills and abilities, which would serve the dual purpose of contributing positively to the societal well-being, and at the same time help one find spiritual fulfilment. At the cost of repetition, this classification was based on one’s inherent qualities and abilities to do certain kinds of works and not based on birth. Lord Sri Krishna in the song divine, bhagavadgītā declares, ‘चातुर्वर्ण्यं मया सृष्टं गुणकर्मविभागशः cāturvarṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ guṇakarmavibhāgaśaḥ – The fourfold caste was created by Me (as the Supreme Divine), by the differentiation of guṇa (tendencies and disposition) and karma (actions) of individuals.’ Thus, a person whose natural inclination was intellectual and had a sincere yearning to learn would be permitted to acquire and propagate knowledge, even if the person was born in a different class than the intellectuals. Similarly, the one born in the intellectual social order may choose to pursue business interests, which depended on the inclination and so on. चातुर्वर्ण्यं मया सृष्टं गुणकर्मविभागशः । तस्य कर्तारमपि मां विद्ध्यकर्तारमव्ययम् ॥ cāturvarṇyaṃ mayā sṛṣṭaṃ guṇakarmavibhāgaśaḥ . tasya kartāramapi māṃ viddhyakartāramavyayam ॥ (भगवद्गीता bhagavadgītā, 4.13)

History is full of such examples wherein one transitioned from one category to another based on one’s qualities and interests. In fact, bhagavān veda vyāsa, who classified all the vedas and wrote the purāṇas and mahābhārata, was born to a brāhmaṇa father and a śūdra mother. mahaṛṣi vālmīki who scripted the rāmāyaṇa was born in a family of highway robbers. King kauśika, who was born as a kṣatriya renounced his kingdom and dedicated himself to the study of scriptures and spiritual austerities, was later known as Sage viśvāmitra, similar to King Bhartrihari who scripted several spiritual texts. There were brāhmaṇas like rāvaṇa who became kings, and kings like hariścandra who worked as a servant at a crematorium.

Unfortunately, over a period of time this pristine idea of classification of people, based on their inherent qualities for a harmonious and organised societal order, has been misunderstood and even exploited by certain people for their personal gains distorting it beyond recognition into a tool for creating divisions and disharmony in the society. The one who truly follows sanātana dharma would see through these external differences into the innate divine oneness of all creation, like the person who would see all his limbs as part of his very own self.

We shall discuss this in the next article.