The ‘Guna’s: A Psycho-Analytic Interpretation

By PHILIP SPRATT

Freud began writing in the 1890’s, and by the time of the first world war his main ideas had become widely known. The intellectuals of the West received them like a revelation. There was fierce opposition but also enthusiastic acceptance, and they quickly became part of the Euro-American culture.

After the usual time-lag, Indian intellectuals dutifully acquainted themselves with Freud’s writings. But his ideas have never made any deep impression here. Why? Are Indian intellectuals more discriminating, quicker to see the errors and limitations of an abstruse theory? It seems unlikely. Did they know it all before? Despite laborious efforts to draw parallels between Freud and Patanjali, that view is no more plausible.

The European intellectuals responded so vigorously, for or against, because Freud’s work was a genuine revelation to them. Whether they liked it or not, they felt that it exhibited their true psychic anatomy. Indian intellectuals have failed to respond because they have no such feeling; and they have no such feeling because their psychic anatomy is different from that which Freud revealed.

The psychic character typical of India and that typical of Europe are described, though briefly and inadequately, in the doctrine of the ‘guna’s. The Indian is ‘sattvik’ and the European is ‘rajasik’. But the doctrine, as it is usually stated, omits to set forth the varieties of which both types are susceptible. It is said that there are mixtures in various proportions of ‘sattva’, ‘rajas’ and ‘tamas’, but none of the authorities appears to go beyond that. The ‘sattvik’ is presented as always conforming to the ideal, perfectly detached, balanced, pure, whereas many people who, in any plausible system, would be classified with the ‘sattvik’s are not so admirable. In the same way the ‘rajasik’ is not only wrathful and turbulent, but can be nearly, perhaps quite, as self-controlled and virtuous as the ideal ‘sattvik’ himself.

The ‘guna’ theory places ‘tamas’ as a psychic factor or ingredient on the same level as the other two. If we equate ‘tamas’ with the Freudian ‘id’ or animal nature, this is inconvenient. Freud regards the id as the source of all psychic energy and, therefore, a main factor in every psyche; but it is more or less effectively controlled and sublimated. It is therefore better to look upon ‘tamas’ not as a psychic ingredient independent like ‘sattva’ and ‘rajas’ but as a common lower limit to which both ‘sattvik’ and ‘rajasik’ types degenerate in the extreme case. ‘Sattvik’ and ‘rajasik’ are then different but parallel series of types, both capable of high excellence, though, even at the highest, somewhat different, but both more commonly only mediocre or downright bad, and having characteristic and different faults. There may be mixed ‘sattvik-rajasik’ types, as the theory holds, but it is more convenient to deal with pure types to begin with.

In Freud’s theory the two types are described and analysed as follows. He recognised two basic drives, picturesquely called ‘eros’ and ‘thanatos’, love and death, or, more familiarly, libido and aggressiveness. The psychic type which he described more fully, and assumed from his experience in Europe to be normal, I venture to name the “punitive”. In this type the libido is directed mainly upon the outer world, while a considerable amount of aggressiveness is directed by the super-ego inwards against the ego. Any failure of the ego to live up to the standards of the ego-ideal sets in motion this internalised aggressiveness, causing unconscious guilt, the great spur to self-improvement and external activity.

This psychic structure is of course unconscious, but it strongly influences the conscious life. It is like the bony structure of the body, which determines the appearance in outline though not in detail. However, even this framework is variable. The ego-ideal, which is formed mainly in childhood under the influence of parental and other authority, may be more or less elevated, and the super-ego may function more or less effectively. Thus the id may succeed in imparting much of its animal character to outward behaviour. In particular, the aggressiveness of the super-ego, directed against the ego, provokes further aggressiveness, so that the characteristic vices of this punitive type are variants of aggressiveness, often cloaked in conscientious disguises. Quite high-level punitives are often guilty of unconscious ambition, rapacity and cruelty.

So far the punitive type. Freud also describes a different psychic structure, which in Europe is observed only in a minority. He calls it narcissistic. In a psyche of that type a large part of the libido is directed inward upon the ego, while the super-ego and its internally directed aggressiveness are weak. Freud considered that in any individual the flow of libido, arising from physiological sources, is approximately constant, whereas aggressiveness is not wholly a spontaneous product but in part at least a response to provocation, and is therefore variable in quantity. If the inward-directed aggressiveness is weak, it calls forth only a weak aggressive response. Thus the narcissistic type is relatively lacking in aggressiveness, both inward and outward-directed.

A person of the narcissistic type may have a high ego-ideal. He is not vigorously spurred on to live up to his ideal by inward-directed aggressiveness; he is relatively lacking in the punitive conscience. But his inward-directed libido may serve the same purpose in a less tense and self-torturing way. The ego strives to attain to the ideal because it loves itself. Its virtue derives from love of good rather than hatred of evil. The best type of narcissist has a calm, poised, balanced virtue which the punitive can scarcely attain to, however hard he may struggle with himself.

As examples of narcissists of a high type I may mention Montaigne, Goethe and Wordsworth. All showed pronounced individuality and independence, together with balance, detachment, non-partisanship (the “Olympian” Goethe), and a devotion to truth and the good of mankind. In an age of religious fanaticism Montaigne was a sceptic, but Goethe, and more especially Wordsworth, had an inclination towards pantheism, a natural doctrine for the narcissist, who, concentrating the libido upon the ego, tends to feel that the ego is the only real existent, and, therefore, to identify it with the universe.

It is plausible, then, to equate the Freudian narcissistic type with the ‘sattvik’, the term ‘sattvik’ being used in the broadened sense mentioned above; and also to equate Freud’s normal type, here called the punitive, with the ‘rajasik’. But just as the punitive who fails to reach perfection shows characteristic vices, which are mainly varieties of aggressiveness, so the ‘sattvik’ who falls below the ideals has his characteristic vices, and these are variants of self-love–self-satisfaction, self-absorption, self-indulgence.

India’s classical literature provides many illustrations of these failings. Harishchandra is certainly a ‘sattvik’ type; and his conduct towards his wife and son, whom he sells into slavery in order to avoid the sin of breaking his promise, is characteristically self-centred. Yayati, who exchanges his old age for his son Puru’s youth, and is thus enabled to enjoy himself for a thousand years, realises at length that wordly pleasures are fleeting, and is then regarded as a paragon of virtue for he is admitted to all the heavens. Finally Indra casts him out, not for his sensuality but for his self-satisfaction. Swarochi dallies in a sort of Arcadia with three beautiful and sweet-tempered wives for hundreds of years, until even the birds and animals criticise his undue attachment to worldly enjoyment.

Dushyanta, who promises to marry Shakuntala and then completely forgets her, and Kalidasa’s other dramatic heroes, Pururavas and Agnimitra, who pursue their romantic attachments although they are already married, are again typically narcissistic characters. So are the heroes of the popular Puranic stories, Nala, Satyavan, Satadhanu, who are virtually dummies and leave it to their devoted and enterprising wives to get them out of the trouble that their faults or misfortunes have brought upon them.

The narcissistic type also has characteristic faults at still lower levels. The ego-ideal may be orthodox, so that professed principles will be lofty, but, in the absence of a conscience, there will be little effort to live up to them and little distress at failure to do so. The weakness of aggressiveness brings it about that external activity is slight; the narcissist tends to be slothful. He will refrain from violence, but he may try to attain his ends by scheming, which is morally little better.

Owing to the inward concentration of libido in the narcissist, little can be directed towards outer objects, and accordingly loyalties tend to be weak. The punitive directs libido upon a sovereign or other political symbol, which may serve to unite an extensive realm, and his loyalty to it is reinforced by his aggressive feelings towards rival political entities. Both of these emotions are weak in the narcissist, who tends to remain linked to small groups, family, tribe or caste, and to be indifferent to wider ones.

The traditional account of the ‘sattvik’ type does not explain why so many of the slightly imperfect ‘sattvik’s in the Puranas are sex-addicts. If we can identify the ‘sattvaguna’ with Freud’s narcissism, this is explained; and in general we can understand the close association of religion and sex in Hinduism, and also the wide gulf officially maintained between them in Christianity.

Libido and aggressiveness, the psychic roots of love and hate, are inherently opposed. A psyche dominated by aggressiveness will tend to repress the overt manifestations of libido–sexual activity, the arts, elaborate manners, ceremonial, luxury. This tendency will be the more marked, the higher the moral level the punitive attains. This, and not any abnormality in St. Paul’s mental constitution, is the cause of the hostility of Christianity to sex.

In the narcissistic psyche; on the other hand, aggressiveness is weak and libido is dominant. At the highest level, libido is directed into self-development or love of mankind, but at any level short of the highest it is apt to find direct expression in sexual activity, unimpeded by the puritan’s in-turned aggressiveness. Hence the sexual side of Hindu religion, so puzzling and shocking to Christian puritans. Deities are often female, and are usually unexacting in their demand on their devotees, as contrasted with the oppressive male god of the punitive. To the true Christian, sin is the very centre of religion; to the Hindu it is a matter of minor concern.

It has been noticed above that the narcissist tends to identify the ego with the universe. Only in a society where the intellectual class were mainly of the narcissistic type could the doctrine of Advaita, the identity of the ‘atman’ and the ‘brahman’, be widely accepted. The principal teaching of the Gita, Nishkama Karma, is also characteristically narcissistic. It tells the believer to act rightly, but to be indifferent, to the practical outcome of his actions: i.e., it tells him to confine his concern to his own moral rightness, and to withdraw his interest from the external world.

‘Tapas’ is a practice characteristic of the narcissistic type. True, mediaeval Christian penitents wore hair shirts in order to subdue the flesh; but for them it was aggression against the self. It was supposed to be accompanied by meditation upon the crucifixion, i. e., upon their own guilt, and to lead to a hatred of self and an increase in zeal for outward activity. For the narcissist, ‘tapas’ is an exercise in withdrawal of the libido from external things; the pain, if any, is secondary. The main theme of Hindu ‘tapas’ is ‘dhyana’, concentration of the libido inwards. Yoga is a variant in which the painful element is entirely eliminated.

But Hindus delight in self-sacrifice. This has misled some writers, who have inferred that Hindus are punitives. But the punitive’s attitude is rather different. He submits to sacrifice as an unpleasant duty; he does not welcome it. Analytically, the difference is this: in accepting sacrifice, which archetypal is the loss of the sex organ, the punitive is suffering punishment for rebellion against his father; on the other hand, in undergoing that sacrifice the narcissist is identifying himself with his mother. This is always his unconscious aim, and hence the sacrifice is welcome. There is good evidence that in the Hindu unconscious, generally, sacrifice conforms to the narcissistic type: identification with the mother. I will cite only one example: Satyagraha. It is a method not of attacking but of winning over the opponent by a display of virtue, harmlessness, good temper, even helping him in other matters, and submitting to his violence without complaint, the process culminating, if successful, in the conversion of the opponent to love for the Satyagrahi. It is clearly the attitude of a woman to a man, and was recognised by the Mahatma to be so.

Since the narcissistic type has little aggressiveness, a society made up of such types will tend to be sluggish. In the punitive type, much of the aggressiveness of the young is directed against their fathers, whose ideas, accordingly, tend to be repudiated. Hence, variety and rapid change, especially of ideas, artistic fashions, and the like, are features of punitive society. In a narcissistic society, on the other hand, sons will accept the ideas of their fathers without much protest, and such a society will be conservative, conformist, and dominated by the sedate, unadventurous and other-worldly preferences of old men.

There are other grounds for identifying the ‘sattvaguna’ with the Freudian narcissism, and for thinking that the predominant psychic type among Hindus is the narcissistic. Of course not all Hindus conform to the model. Among public men of recent generations, I should say that Ram Mohan Roy and Tilak, for example, were punitives; but Nana Farnavis and Gokhale were typical high-level narcissists. Judging from his writing. Kalidasa was a narcissist, as I have suggested above. And, judging from either his life or his writings, Tagore was clearly of that type. I have studied Mahatma Gandhi’s life more closely than that of any of these, and am inclined to the more complicated hypothesis that he began as a punitive but, in middle life, perhaps under the influence of ‘tapasya’, began to revert to type.

A theory entertained by the mind about itself cannot tell it much that it did not know, or enable it to predict behaviour much better than its untutored judgment enabled it to do. But it can point out connections which are otherwise overlooked, and put familiar facts in a new perspective. The thesis advanced here about the meaning of the ‘guna’ doctrine, and about the narcissistic as the predominant psychic type among Hindus, may have such a value. The weakness of aggressiveness in Hindus is familiar, but its connection with the weakness of the punitive conscience, and hence with low morals, and with the weakness of effort and of innovation, is not commonly realised. The connection of these facts with the devotion to mothers and goddesses, and with the strength of caste and other parochial loyalties, is also a new insight. But these weaknesses are closely tied in with the virtues which Hindu rightly cherish. The true ‘sattvik’, is moved not by opposition to evil but by love of good. He is impelled to action not by unconscious guilt nor by rivalry or emulation, but by the call of the ideal and the example of ideal leaders, and for him the ideal leader is one in whom the internal concentration of the libido is complete, the ‘vairagi’.

The position of India in the modern world is such that the defects of the ‘sattvik’ psyche are more felt than its virtues. Indeed these obsolete ideals are a heavy burden. Modern-minded men affect to despise them, but how many have really cast off their spell? In any case, those who aspire to change them should know what they are doing. What has been said above, if it has any truth, should help the modern-minded reformer to get a glimpse of the magnitude of the task he has undertaken.

Back