An Indian conception of well being

S. K. Kiran Kumar

In Henry, J. (Ed) European Positive Psychology Proceedings 2002. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society, 2003.

Introduction

What contributes for happiness and wellbeing is a fundamental issue that has been debated in all cultures for ages. Material wealth and affluence, fulfilment of one’s desires, human relationships, development of one’s potentialities and individuality, one’s own psychological state, faith in a religion and spirituality are some of the variables considered as relevant and significant in this context. However, their importance varies from culture to culture as indicated in many studies, which reflect the socio-cultural differences in the conceptualisation of subjective wellbeing (SWB) (Diener, 2000).

Joshi (2002) has observed that an upwardly mobile society that enables its citizens to achieve a high level of material comfort may not provide mental and spiritual succour. According to him individuals in a society can attain fulfilment, happiness and sense of achievement without owning a Mercedes. Hence, a society’s development indices should not be counted as high, even if it is affluent, if it fails to impart human values to its individuals. Therefore, he contends that any development parameter should reflect the influences of body, mind, intellect and soul, which are the four components of human personality. Kasser & Ryan (1996) note that if people strive more for extrinsic goals such as money, more numerous their problems will be and less robust their well being (cited by Myers, 2000). Kammann (1983) has gone a step ahead in suggesting that “objective life circumstances have a negligible role to play in a theory of happiness” (Myers, 2000, p.60).

Recent studies show that economically poor and rich nations do not differ significantly in the index of life satisfaction. For example, a study by Diener & Diener (1995) (cited in Diener, 2000) shows that the mean life satisfaction scores and purchasing power parity (PPP) of poor and rich nations did not show any linear relationship. India with a score of 5 for PPP on a scale ranging between 0-100, obtained mean life satisfaction score of 6.70 on a scale ranging from 1 (dissatisfied) to 10 (satisfied). Similarly Nigeria with a score of 6 on PPP obtained the mean life satisfaction score of 6.59 and China with PPP score of 9 has a mean of 7.29 on life satisfaction. On the otherhand, USA with a PPP of 100 has obtained 7.73 on life satisfaction, Switzerland with a PPP of 96 has got a mean life satisfaction score of 8.36 and Bulgaria with PPP score of 22 has scored 5.03 on mean life satisfaction. Similarly, Indian and Chinese college students did not differ much from their counterparts in affluent countries, in terms of how often they think about life satisfaction and happiness, or how important is life satisfaction, happiness and money for them (Suh, Diener, Oishi, & Triandis, 1998- cited in Diener, 2000).

Such findings cast doubt on the role material wealth and affluence plays in ensuring happiness and wellbeing. Myers (2000) after reviewing a number of related studies, which show that there is no linear relation between increase in national wealth and economic growth, and reported well being among affluent countries concludes as follows. “Our becoming much better off over the last four decades has not been accompanied by one iota of increased subjective well being” (p.61). He also observes that “William Cowper’s 1782 hunch appears correct: Happiness depends, as Nature shows, Less on exterior things than most suppose” (p.65). Indian sage and seers held precisely such a view from 5000 years and hence looked for the source of happiness within, rather than outside the self. This approach has influenced the Indian ethos very much and it may be considered as a plausible explanation for the lowest PPP and more than average life satisfaction score obtained by Indian sample, in Diener & Dieners’ study.

Worldviews and perspectives on wellbeing

Underlying any concept of quality of life and wellbeing is a worldview, which provides a perspective on the nature of man, his place in the universe, and on the nature of the universe. For example, there is an exclusively materialist view in the Indian tradition according to which fulfilment of desires, particularly of sensory nature, is the sole criterion of well being that leads to pleasure orientation. In ancient India the extreme protagonist of this view was Brhaspathi. He was also known as Lokaayata which literally means ‘one who goes the worldly way’ and as Chaarvaaka, ‘sweet-tongued’, probably because he supported what most human beings generally think viz., that pleasure is the ultimate aim of life (Raju, 1992). He lived around 600 B.C and his philosophical system is also known as Lokaayata and popularly as Chaarvaaka Philosophy 1 .

Chaarvaaka epistemology is thoroughgoing positivism, which admits the reality of whatever we can perceive with our senses and deny the reality of whatever, we cannot so perceive. Chaarvaaka metaphysics denies the existence of a transcendent Self or Consciousness, known as Atman in the Indian tradition. Followers of this philosophy considered being conscious as the peculiar characteristic of living human body, which lasts as long as the physical parts are healthy and stay together in a certain form. Hence they considered consciousness as an emergent quality and self-awareness as an adventitious property of physical body itself. Mind (manas) according to them is the same as consciousness in its knowing function. Mind knows the world through the senses (Raju, 1992).

Chaarvaaka philosophy rejected locks stock and barrel the notion of God, dharma (values), law of karma (theory of action leading to rebirth), objective ethical laws, and many other related ideas, which were espoused by Vedas (the orthodox traditional wisdom of India). It was out and out anti-Vedic in spirit. It affirmed the view that life belongs only to this world and ends in this world and therefore one should try to make the best of this life. Man should do whatever is possible to enhance pleasure and avoid pain and any action done for the sake of pleasure is justified. Since pleasure is not possible without wealth (artha), one could beg, borrow or steal or even murder, to have more wealth and more pleasure. “The only laws binding on man are the laws of the state, obedience to which brings rewards and disobedience of which brings punishment... if he is clever enough to circumvent them, then his action is justified. Otherwise, he should follow them to avoid the pain of punishment” (Raju, 1992, p.90-92).

This system of philosophy never gained prominence in ancient India. However, in contemporary times we see that there are many indicators to say that it is taking hold of the Indian psyche. Under the influence of scientific and technological innovations, industrialisation, modernisation, open trade policy, westernization and globalisation there is increased consumerism and ‘credit’ cards are becoming popular. It reminisces the famous statement of Chaarvaaka: rnam krtva grtam pibheth, which means one should drink ghee 2 (clarified butter) even if one has to take credit. In ancient India and even today by some, using ghee is associated with luxury and richness. This is the hedonistic perspective, which is quite familiar to most people across the globe.

A second perspective, which is quite opposed to this and lying on the other end of the spectrum, is rooted in transcendental view of reality. This is the transcendent perspective. It is the ideal upheld by the Indian tradition as the ultimate in well being. Happiness and well being according to this view is subjective in the sense that they do not depend on any objective conditions of reality, including one’s state of body-mind also. Further, transcendent view is rooted in an all-encompassing universal vision, which aspires for the well being of everyone in the universe3. The basis or foundation of the transcendental view is the holistic vision, which the ancient sages and seers had. That vision was born out of experience of pure consciousness, shuddha chaitanya, as the substratum of phenomenal reality. This vision is the essence of Vedic and Upanishadic traditions of India. The epistemology and metaphysics that supports this perspective will be discussed in the next section.

A third perspective that lies in between the hedonistic and the transcendent perspectives, is the collectivist perspective. The collectivist perspective takes into account the fact that there are enormous individual differences in the needs and aspirations of people. While some are purely hedonistic in their approach and a few are spiritual in nature, a vast majority falls in between. It is they who might fall into the abyss of hedonism or scale the peak of transcendence, depending on which worldview prevail upon them. Keeping this vast majority in sight the Indian seer and sage established a social framework and ground rules for good life, which ensures the wellbeing of all.

Development of concepts of happiness and wellbeing in the Indian tradition

Seligman and Ciskszentmihalyi (2000) note that only when cultures are stable, prosperous and at peace they may contemplate on questions related to quality of human existence as it happened in Athens in 5th century B.C, in Florence in the 15th century and in Victorian England. They also note that different aspects of human existence were focussed in these cultures. For example, Athenian philosophy focused on such questions as what are good action and good character and what makes life most worthwhile. Democracy was born in this era. Florence chose to invest its surplus in beauty instead of aspiring to become a military superpower in Europe. Victorian England affirmed honour, discipline, valour and duty as central human virtues. Similarly much of the notions of quality of life and well being that we find in the Indian culture today can be traced back to Vedic and Upanishadic periods 4. That was a period when seer and sages lived amidst natural beauty and abundance of natural wealth with a well-conceived and established social system.

The Vedic and Upanishadic seer and sages emphasised on realising that which is eternal (nitya) and permanent (satya), rather than going after anything that is momentary (kshanika) and that is liable to undergo decay and destruction (kshara) or impermanent (mithya). This was an aspect of the more fundamental quest to know the ultimate truth, by seer and sages of India. They understood and defined the ultimate truth with reference to that which is permanent and everlasting rather than that which is impermanent and transient. They applied this distinction in understanding everything in the universe: physical, biological, psychological, ethical, moral, and so on. They made use of this distinction even to evaluate what is good and not good, what is worthy and unworthy, what is desirable and undesirable, etc. So in defining happiness and wellbeing they applied the same rule.

Their search for the permanent and everlasting lead to the formulation of an ultimate principle called Brahman, also known as shuddha chaitanya, which pervades everything in the universe and hence considered as the substratum of the universe. Existence (satyam), Consciousness (jnanam) and Infinity (anantam) are its signs. One should note that the word satya was used to refer to that which exists and exists permanently. It is the same Brahman that also underlies our experience of personal existence and consciousness. The personal aspect of the ultimate principle or substratum of the universe they called Atman, transcendental Self.

To realize Atman first and to know that Atman and Brahman are the same was considered as liberation moksha, the highest good and the highest purpose of human existence. With liberation, they believed, one also ceases to be involved in the cycle of physical birth and death. Thus Vedic and Upanishadic seer and sages regarded Atman as satya and nitya and urged all human beings to realize that as a way of escaping all kinds of sufferings and misery and to enjoy permanent bliss (ananda) which is the characteristic of that state of realization. In this lies the true wellbeing (swasthya) 5 and welfare (kalyana) of one and all because at that ‘height of non-dual consciousness’, there is no difference of self and the other in a narrow sense6. Many concepts related to happiness and wellbeing available in the Indian tradition in different languages can be traced back to Vedic and Upanishadic texts.

A theory of happiness and wellbeing in Taittiriya Upanishad

Upanishadic sages understood ananda, bliss, as the original condition of human beings and characterise Atman, the ‘pure consciousness’ or transcendental Self. However, a series of coverings or sheaths, kosha, obstruct the experience of this original condition. These sheaths are five in number viz., annamaya kosha, pranamaya kosha, manomaya kosha, vijnanamaya kosha, and anandamaya kosha. The word maya means being pervaded. Annamaya is the grossest of the sheaths; being constituted of food which is physical in nature and thus refers to physical body. The word sheath does not refer to any physical structure beyond this sheath. Pranamaya refers to the vital force. Manomaya refers to mental functions we study in psychology. Vijnanamaya refers to intuitive faculty, which is not given its due in modern psychology. Anandamaya refers to that intrinsic condition of blissfulness.

The self-sense usually experienced by all of us, I am the body, is known as annamaya purusha. The term purusha represents ‘being’ and is a generic term, which when used as a suffix in conjunction with each of the sheaths represent the self-sense associated with each of them. Thus we have annamaya purusha, pranamaya purusha, manomaya purusha, vijnanamaya purusha and anandamaya purusha corresponding to each of the five sheaths. Thus we can experience our identity in terms of these koshas, each of which is progressively more comprehensive but considered to be one inside the other like onion skin, with annamaya kosha forming the outer most sheath. Within the framework of the concepts of kosha, our happiness and wellbeing are ultimately a matter of accessing anandamaya kosha, which is blissful in itself and be that (anandamaya purusha) (Shankaracharya’s commentary on Taittiriya Upanishad-Anandavalli) 7.

In the language of modern psychology each sheath can be considered as a dimension of awareness. Unfolding of the dimensions can progressively alter our identity sense itself, so much so that in anandamaya kosha, ‘I am’ bliss rather than ‘I experiencing’ bliss, as a state. According to Taittiriya Upanishad, we tend to think that happiness, joy, suffering; wellbeing, etc. are due to presence or absence of certain objects to which we attach causal significance. On the otherhand, happiness, joy and wellbeing are those moments when there is unobstructed manifestation of ananda, which is our original nature. It is the opaqueness of our mental faculties that obstructs the manifestation of ananda. The principle that is responsible for opaqueness, retardation, inertia, dullness, darkness, depression, and such like in the universe is called tamas. The principle that is responsible for brightness, illumination, transparency, and such like is called sattva. Greater the transparency of the mental faculties, i.e., sattva, greater is the experience of spontaneous ananda.

An analogy can clarify this point. The sunlight is ever present but dimmed when the clouds obstruct the sunrays, or during eclipse, or when during earth’s rotation on its axis some parts become dark. Similarly the sun shines brightly (from our point of view) when the clouds pass or there is no eclipse or the part of earth we are dwelling is facing the sun. In the same way when our attention is not focussed on the internal source, but instead is distracted by external objects and events or by mental activities, they serve as obstructions. We experience variations of happiness and unhappiness depending on whether our mental activities obstructed the manifestation of bliss or not. So occurrence of happiness or joy in association with external circumstances or objects or mental activities is coincidental not causal (Shankaracharya’s commentary on Taittiriya Upanishad- Anandavalli, - 147).

Therefore Ananda actually refers to a state of consciousness, characterised by positive feeling, which is not dependent on any object or events of external reality. Thus the experience of ananda, bliss, is a qualitatively different sense of positive state and well being from that is associated with other sheaths, koshas (table 1) 8. Hence, a person who has an expanded state of consciousness evaluates his/her well being as ananda. The self-sense beyond aanandamaya kosha is the transcendent Self, Atman, pure consciousness, which is a positive state characterised as shaanti, that is a sense of sublime peace and quietude. That is why in all the religious and spiritual functions in India when chanting of mantra takes place, the chanting concludes with shaanti mantra - Om shaanti, shaanti, shaantihi.

So the Bhagawad Geeta, Song Divine, (a sacred text of India), asks us to remain always in sattva, i.e., to be predominated by the principle of illumination and transparency so that we can be always in touch with the bliss within. The seer and sages advocated four types of aids for the purification of mind and reduction of tamas. They are penance (tapas), jnana (intuitive knowledge not just intellectual information), brahmacharya (restraining and turning the senses inward with a desire to get established in the ultimate principle) and shraddha (dedication and devotion to realize the Self). All these will enhance the principle of illumination, sattva, in a person.

Table 1. Different concepts of happiness (sukha) associated with different sheaths

According to Taittiriya Upanishad, the self-sense of the vital sheath (pranamaya kosha) pervades the bodily sheath (annamaya kosha); that of mental-emotional sheath (manomaya kosha) pervades the vital sheath; and so on. Thus different types of emotions, positive and negative, are associated with first three koshas beyond which a person can experience only a positive state. Hence, the Indian seer and sages urged people to transcend the limitations of the annamaya, pranamaya and manomaya kosha and the associated limited self-definitions and move to intrinsically positive states and experience aananda and shaanti.

Ordinarily people feel their identities or self-sense with annamaya, praanamaya and manomaya kosha and remain established at that level. The evaluation of ill being and well being happen within this limited framework. However, some persons either spontaneously or through induction from meditation, yoga and such other practices are able to move beyond these sheaths and narrow self-definitions. Spontaneous peak experiences, drug-induced states, and ecstatic and mystic experiences are instances of transcendence of the limitations of first three koshas. Therefore, our SWB has an intrinsic relation to our self-definitions. The different concepts of happiness and wellbeing discussed above are related to different sheaths or self-sense. Indian seer and sages conceived human evolution in terms of progressive realisation of these different sheaths or dimensions of awareness.

Evolution of human nature and wellbeing in Indian thought

Within this evolutionary framework of human nature, meaning and purpose of human existence can become more personal and consequently the conception of wellbeing and good life depend on the evolutionary status of the individual. Indian sage and seers considered man not only as an ‘organism’ having animal characteristics, but also as a ‘being’ who has potentialities to achieve ‘divinity’, besides what are universally considered as ‘human’ characteristics. Thus individuals may be of three kinds. Those who are more like animals living a life of biological need satisfaction with attendant emotions (raakshasa gana — demonic group). Those who are human in the sense the term is generally used to differentiate man from animals (manushya gana — human group). Those who express divine qualities such as altruism, compassion, love, and transcendence (daiva gana — divine group). What is intrinsic to these groupings is the evolutionary 9 level of the individuals, as understood and defined by Indian sage and seers.

Therefore, Indian sage and seers formulated four major goals of human existence, called purusharthas. They are Dharma (values), artha (wealth), kaama (desires) and moksha (liberation). Dharma embodies the entire individual and collective values, and incorporates all the virtues and strengths that are being currently examined by Positive Psychologists (Peterson & Seligman, 2001). Artha refers to wealth, of all kinds, material and non-material (like intellectual property), movable and immovable. Kaama refers to all kinds of desire biological and psychosocial. Moksha refers to a possibility of stepping out of the cycle of life and death, or rebirth/reincarnation. While the first three are easy to comprehend, the concept moksha poses quite a bit of problem to the uninitiated in Indian ethos and eidos. However, it is significant that the Indian tradition upholds moksha as the ideal purushartha to be attained by all human beings because that is considered as the ultimate in human evolution.

Thus depending on one’s evolutionary status people may consider pursuit of desires (kaama), pursuit of wealth (artha), pursuit of values (dharma) and pursuit of liberation (moksha) as the keynote of their life either individually or in combination. Indian sage and seers observed that pursuit of desires and wealth to the exclusion of pursuit of values and of liberation is a sign of lower level of evolution. Thus a person who is in a lower level of psychological evolution may pursue kaama and artha to the exclusion of dharma without any recognition of moksha as a human possibility. Whereas another person who incorporates dharma as well may be considered to be more evolved. A third person, who may subordinate pursuit of kaama and artha to pursuit of dharma, and a fourth person who may pursue moksha, while subordinating dharma, artha and kaama can be thought of as more evolved than the first two.

Indian seer and sages prescribed that one should fulfil one’s desires or pursue wealth within the framework of dharma, which ensures the good of everyone. The Indian seer and sages upheld the pursuit of artha and kaama within the framework of dharma. Kuppuswamy translates the views of Manu on the relative value of dharma, artha and kaama thus. “Some declare that the chief good of man consists in dharma and artha, others place it in the gratification of kaama and artha; some say that it consists of dharma alone; while others say that it consists of artha alone; but the correct position is that the good of man consists of the harmonious co-ordination of the three (II: 224). So that, according to him, it is the combination of all the three that constitutes the chief well, the shreyas” (1977, p.60).

Concept of dharma and its role in ensuring the wellbeing of all

The term dharma is derived from the Sanskrit root dhr, which means to uphold, to sustain, and to hold together. Dharma is a most complex concept to define and it has different connotations. Ancient thinkers tried to use this umbrella concept to cover all values related to all the aspects of life. Broadly speaking, the concept stands for the fundamental order in social affairs and in moral life and is a principle, which maintains the stability of society. Dharma connotes precepts that aim at securing the material and spiritual sustenance and growth of the individual and society (Kuppuswamy, 1977).

Dharma is a dynamic concept and the content of dharma often changed with changing contexts of time, place and social environment (Dandekar, 1963). Hence ancient thinkers distinguished between sanaatana dharma which is universal and eternal, and yugadharma which is valid only for an age. Indian thinkers also spoke about other kinds of dharma, all of which have influenced the concept of good life and well being. They include maanava dharma (dharma of human beings), svadharma (dharma of self), dharma as law, dharma as justice, dharma as customary morality, dharma as duty, and dharma as conscience (Kuppuswamy, 1977). Among these the first two deserves further consideration in the context of positive psychology and well being.

Manu the foremost ancient rsi who is considered to be the author of dharmashaastra (treatise on dharma) defines the characteristics of maanava dharma, dharma of all human beings sans all kinds of distinctions, which is universal. It includes such qualities as contentment, forgiveness, self-control, abstention from unrighteously appropriating anything, (following the rules of) purification, disciplining the organs, wisdom, knowledge, truthfulness and abstention from anger (Manu VI: 92 cited in Kuppuswamy, 1977).

Kautilya, the ancient Indian thinker well known for his magnum opus on economics and polity, Arthashaastra, lists harmlessness, truthfulness, purity, wisdom, freedom from spite, abstinence from cruelty, and forgiveness as the essential constituents of maanava dharma (Kuppuswamy, 1977). Thus ancient thinkers emphasized on the development of these uniquely human qualities and emotions, inspite of any economic hardship, poverty and even hunger and any adverse circumstances of life. India is replete with real life stories and anecdotes of people who lived up to maanava dharma inspite of adversities.

Then we have the concept of svadharma. Svadharma refers to a person’s unique potentialities, aptitudes, abilities, likes, dislikes, etc. Sri Aurobindo a mystic and philosopher of 20th century India interprets the concept thus. “The right order of human life as of the universe is preserved according to the ancient Indian idea by each individual being following faithfully this svadharma, the true law or norm of his nature” (cited in Kuppuswamy, 1977, p.23).

As Kuppuswamy notes “Mahabharatha, one of the two great epic poems of India, declares, ‘Dharma is created for the well-being of all creation, ‘all that is free from doing harm to any created being is certainly dharma; for indeed, dharma is created to keep all creation free from any harm’; ‘dharma is so called because it protects all; dharma preserves all that is capable of preserving the universe.’ (Shaanti Parva 109-10, 11, 58)” (1977, p).

Strategies of achieving wellbeing

Indian seer and sages believed that men could make conscious and deliberate effort to evolve further from whatever level/group they are born to. Hence they conceived the primary purpose of human existence as one of continuous self refinement, the culmination of which is the ability to step aside from the cycle of birth and death, called moksha (liberation). They understood liberation as transcending all kinds of limitations, which involve freeing oneself from various types of attachments, identifications and psychological conditioning not only to external objects and events, but even to one’s own mental states and body as well. Limit of this dis-identification from body is expressed in Bhagawad Geeta (Song Divine) (Chapter, II Verse, 22) as follows. “Just as a person throws his tattered clothes and puts on a new dress, Atman the owner of this body, when it wears out and dies, will take on a new body”. Hence, Indian seer and sages focussed more on anandamaya kosha than on annamaya kosha.

Therefore, wellbeing and good life were to be achieved more in terms of minimisation, restraint, and detachment from bodily need fulfilment rather than maximization, indulgence, and striving for need fulfilment. Such conceptions involved giving up and letting go rather than controlling, identifying and holding on. Tusti, contentment, was considered more important than trpti, pleasure, and sukha, happiness. The ultimate or ideal contentment espoused was to be contented within self, with the realization of transcendent Self10. Hence, Self-realization was accorded greater prominence than self-actualization. Practises, which incorporated strategies of realising the transcendent Self, came to be known as yoga. Thus we have different systems of yoga suited to persons at different levels of evolution.

Characteristics of persons at different levels of evolution according to Indian thought

Indian seer and sages distinguished between three gunas, three constituent factors, which underlie both mind and matter. They are sattva, rajas, and tamas, which represent principle of illumination, of energy and of inertia. Indian worldview holds that these principles operate in various combinations in the entire universe in the structure and function of everything including human beings. Thus people are differentiated as saatvik, raajasic and taamasic depending on the preponderance of one of the three over the other two.

A sattvic person is described as one who has discriminative intellect; who is self-controlled, serene, equanimous, and steadfast; who is virtuous, generous and gentle; and who is detached and duty bound without expectations, a seeker of self and aware of the unity underlying all diversities. A rajasic person is one who is driven into action by passion, is restless, is struggling; who has more desires, strong likes and dislikes, and pursues sensory pleasures; who is attached to one’s social roles; who lacks clear discrimination and has distorted understanding; and who is egotistic. A tamasic person is depressed, lethargic, disinclined to work, negligent, undisciplined, arrogant, hostile, indecisive, ignorant, inadvertent, uncertain and dull. It is to be noted that all the three gunas are present in all the individuals and it is the preponderance of one over the other which leads to the labelling of persons as sattvic, rajasic and tamasic type. The human evolution involves increasing sattvic characteristics.

Conclusion

Statistically speaking, a vast majority share collective perspective occupying the area comprising the second and third quartile of a normal probability curve, with those sharing hedonistic and the transcendental perspectives occupying first and fourth quartiles respectively. The three perspectives can be placed on a continuum of human evolution, from animal, to human, and to divine as understood by Indian sages and seers. Thus in Indian thought the ideal well being is understood as a resultant of the expansion of consciousness and realization of a transcendent Self whose very nature is bliss.

References

Endnotes