Happiness and Well-Being in Indian Tradition PDF

Felicita e benessere nella tradizione Indiana Passagi- Rivista Italiana Di Scenze
Transculturali, 11/VI/2006.
Happiness and well-being in Indian tradition. Psychological Studies, 51, 2-3, 105-112,
2006
HAPPINESS AND WELL - BEING IN INDIAN TRADITION
S. K. Kiran Kumar1
ABSTRACT
Nature of happiness and well-being is a matter of debate from times immemorial.

Conceptualization of happiness and well-being has varied across cultures on a spectrum
ranging from hedonic to transcendent view points. Contemporary preoccupation with this
topic by the newly found Positive Psychology has raised many issues and attempts have
been made to define and measure well-being from different perspectives. In this paper it
is argued that the conceptualization of the nature of happiness and well-being primarily
depend on the worldview one holds that lead to differing assumptions on the nature of
reality and of human nature. While ‘hedonic’ and ‘eudaimonic’ concepts of well-being
articulated in western context limit them to bio-psycho-social aspects of human nature,
the spiritual or transcendent perspective of the Upanishads approach the subject matter in
terms of the dimensions of consciousness and self and encompass bio-psycho-social and
spiritual aspects. The paper attempts to explicate a theory of happiness and well-being
based on the concepts panchakosha and ānanda embedded in Taittirya Upanishad. The
essential argument is that one’s notion of happiness and well-being is intrinsically bound
with one’s sense of identity in terms of one of the five koshas and the notion varies as
one’s identity shifts from one kosha to another, from empirical to transcendental level.
The theory gives rise to certain postulates, which can guide future research.
Brief Introduction to Positive Psychology

Positive Psychology is a new field within the discipline and a very recent
phenomenon. The First European Positive Psychology Conference was held in June 2002
in UK (Kiran Kumar, 2002a) and the First International Summit on Positive Psychology
was held in October 2002 in Washington DC (Kiran Kumar, 2002b). Emergence of
positive psychology reflects a value crisis within the western society itself, in particular
USA, as its proponents have stated. Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, (2000) observe that
Americans left alone on the pinnacle of economic and political leadership face a
1
Professor of Psychology, University of Mysore, Manasagangotri, Mysore – 570 006.
E-mail: [email protected]
1
2006
historical choice in the new millennium. They can continue to increase its material wealth
while ignoring the human needs of its people and those of the rest of the planet, which
can lead to increasing selfishness, to alienation between the more and the less fortunate
and eventually to chaos and despair or change their priorities and values. Hence, they
suggest that the social and behavioural sciences can play an enormously important role at
this juncture by articulating i) “a vision of good life that is empirically sound while being
understandable and attractive”; (ii) “by showing what actions can lead to well-being, to
positive individuals, and to thriving communities”; and (iii) by helping document - (a)
“what kinds of families result in children who flourish”, (b) “what work settings support
the greatest satisfaction among workers”, (c) “what policies result in the strongest civic
engagement, (d) and how people’s lives can be most worth living”(p.5).
Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, (2000) further note that at present psychology has
neglected the fulfilled individual and the thriving community and psychologists have
scant knowledge of what makes life worth living. They also emphasize that psychologists
know very little about how normal people flourish under more benign conditions. Thus,
Positive Psychology as an independent field of study has certain specified aims and
objectives. Its aim is “to catalyze a change in the focus of psychology from
preoccupation only with repairing the worst things in life to also building positive
qualities” (ibid. p. 5). To fulfil these objectives field of positive psychology is envisioned
to have three levels viz., subjective, individual and collective. (a) “At the subjective level
it is about valued subjective experiences: well-being, contentment and satisfaction (in the
2
2006
past); hope and optimism (for the future); and flow and happiness (in the present)”. (b)
“At the individual level, positive psychology is about a number of individual traits not
given much importance in modern psychology such as: the capacity for love and
vocation, courage, interpersonal skill; aesthetic sensibility, perseverance, forgiveness,
originality; future mindedness, spirituality, high talent, and wisdom”. (c) “At the group
level, the concern of positive psychology is about the civic virtues like responsibility,
nurturance, altruism, civility, moderation, tolerance, and work ethic and the institutions
that move individuals toward better citizenship” (p. 5).
Concerns of positive psychology are not totally new. Within the discipline
humanistic and existential schools have raised many of those issues already and
transpersonal psychology is also concerned with some of them. Its proponents have also
stated that it is neither a new movement nor a paradigm. Nevertheless, what distinguish
Positive Psychology from other fields at this stage are its aims and objectives and
commitment to scientific methodology (Seligman & Ciskszenthmihalyi, 2000).
Researchers have considered happiness, well-being and optimal functioning as the
key concepts of Positive Psychology (Buss, 2000; Diener, 2000; Lopez and Snyder, 2003;
Myers, 2000, Ryan and Deci, 2001; Seligman and Ciskszenthmihalyi, 2000, Seligman,
2002; Snyder and Lopez, 2002; Wissing and van Eden, 2002; Wissing et.al. 2002, 2006)
which encompass all its concerns.
Positive psychological concepts and perspectives in Indian traditions
3
2006
The issues related to meaning, purpose and quality of life have been addressed
since times immemorial in all cultures. 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. Hedonia and eudaimonia are two distinct conceptualizations of
well-being offered by ancient Greeks (Ryan and Deci, 2001).
Similarly, even in India many of the notions of quality of life and well being that
we find today were formulated during Vedic and Upanishadic periods dating back to
3000 B.C and even earlier, when seer and sages lived amidst natural beauty and
abundance of natural wealth with a well established social system. The Vedic and
Upanishadic seer and sages focussed on knowing the ultimate truth. They understood and
defined the ultimate truth with reference to that which is permanent (satya) and eternal
(nitya) rather than that which is momentary (kshanika), transient (anitya) and that is
liable to undergo decay and destruction (kshara) and hence impermanent (mithya) in the
universe. They applied this distinction in understanding everything in the universe:
4
2006
physical, biological, psychological, ethical, moral, and so on. They made use of the same
distinction even in defining happiness and wellbeing as well (Kiran Kumar, 2003).
Nitya and anitya in the Indian context, also means real and unreal and one is
urged to discriminate between the two. The discrimination of the eternal from non-eternal
(nityānitya viveka) is the quintessential principle advocated by seers and sages. These
basic ideas reverberate even in non-Vedic or heterodox traditions like Jainism and
Buddhism and all the later scholastic developments that have influenced our ethos (life
ways) and eidos (thought ways). Nature of happiness and well-being is understood solely
with reference to nityānitya viveka and we have many concepts, which are context
specific in meaning and represent various aspects and dimensions of well-being. They
include bhoga, sukha, santosha, harsha, ullāsa, ānanda, trpti, tushti, shubha, mangala,
kalyāna, shreyas, preyas, shānti, ārogya, swāsthya, stitaprajnata, and many more which
are commonly found in classical Sanskrit literature as well as in other Indian languages
derived from Sanskrit. There are many more which could be found in Dravidian
languages and local dialects (Kiran Kumar, 2003, 2004, 2006). Similarly, we also have a
number of other concepts related to positive traits, virtues, strengths and values at
individual and group level in our tradition like kshama, samyama, shēla, dhrti, shourya,
etc., (Sinha, J.1985).
Underlying any concept of quality of life, happiness, 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. Within Indian society itself we have both material and
5
2006
spiritual worldviews espoused in ancient times leading to different perspectives, hedonic,
collective and transcendental (Kiran Kumar, 2003, 2004).
There existed an exclusively materialist view according to which fulfilment of
desires, particularly of sensory nature, is the sole criterion of happiness and well being.
In ancient India, around 600 B.C, the extreme protagonist of this view was Brhaspathi,
also known as Lokāyata (which literally means ‘one who goes the worldly way’) and as
Chārvāka (‘sweet-tongued’) probably because he supported what most human beings
generally think viz., that pleasure is the ultimate aim of life. His philosophical system is
also popularly known as Chārvāka Philosophy and as Lokāyata (Raju, 1992).
Chārvāka 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. 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. Chārvāka philosophy rejected the notion of God,
dharma (values), law of karma (theory of action leading to rebirth) and objective ethical
laws, notion of transcendent consciousness/Self, Ātman, and many other related ideas
espoused by Vedas. 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
6
2006
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). Ihika bhoga (material enjoyment) is the criterion of
happiness and satisfaction according to this perspective, which involves maximizing
pleasure and minimizing pain. This is the hedonic perspective on happiness and well-
being, which is quite familiar to most people across the globe.
Though Chārvāka philosophy never gained prominence in ancient India as a way
of life, in contemporary times we see that under the influence of westernization,
modernization, industrialization, open trade policy and globalization and in the name of
science Chārvāka philosophy is taking hold of the Indian psyche. There is increased
consumerism and ‘credit cards’ are becoming popular. One is reminded of the famous
statement of Chārvāka: rnam krtva grtam pibheth, which means a person, should drink
ghee (and enjoy) even if one has to take credit! (Kiran Kumar, 2003, 2004).
An issue related to hedonic view is whether material enjoyment can really bring
happiness/well-being. Many studies conducted on subjective well-being (Diener, 2000;
Diener and Diener, 1995; Diener and Diener, 2002; Myers, 2000) show that economically
poor and rich nations do not differ significantly in the index of life satisfaction. A number
of cross national studies have revealed that national wealth and economic growth has no
positive correlation with indices of life satisfaction and happiness and, they follow the
7
2006
law of diminishing returns beyond a certain point. Diener and Diener (2002) observe that
some reorientation is needed in material goals, from acquiring money to enjoying the
process of work and contributing to society. Thus, the focus has shifted to other kinds of
happiness and well-being. Ryan and Deci (2001) speak of “eudaimonia” as contrasted
with “hedonia”. Seligman (2002) distinguishes “good life”, meaningful life” and “full
life” from “pleasant life”.
Such distinction as above takes us back to the visions of life expressed by Indian
seers and saints, which encompass them and also go beyond. They endeavoured to take
man beyond all dualities of life like birth and death, pleasure and pain, good and evil and
so on, in a leap of transcendence from the ordinary consciousness to spiritual dimension
and spoke about ānanda, which is the primal condition of happiness and well-being. The
seers and saints ultimately evaluated all the aspects of human existence with reference to
spiritual dimension and hence, provided a comprehensive view of human life and its
goals (Kiran Kumar, 2004).
Indian traditions recognize two aspects of spirituality viz., (a) experiencing
paranormal and supernatural phenomena; (b) and leading a value oriented life. Within
Indian traditions the former is referred to as anubhūti and vibhūti and the latter as dharma
in its all encompassing sense. In contemporary psychological jargon, the former is known
as “altered states of consciousness” (Tart, 1969) and the latter may be referred to by
Maslowian terms “metamotivation” or “Being needs” and “Being-values”. Positive
psychology with its emphasis on positive traits, strengths, and virtues at individual and
8
2006
group level, may be said to be concerned with the value dimension of spirituality more
than the paranormal and supernatural dimensions, which have been the preoccupation of
transpersonal psychologists. These two aspects of spirituality lead to two different
perspectives, which I have termed as transcendental and collective and they have
implications for the key concerns of positive psychology (Kiran Kumar, 2004). In
contrast to these two, hedonic perspective emphasizes on the material and uphold artha
and kāma as the chief source of happiness and well-being (Kiran Kumar, 2004).
Though hedonism did not gain roots in Indian soil, our rishis prayed for the
happiness of all - sarve santu sukhinaha, sarve santu nirāmaya, sarve bhadrāni
pashyantu, mā kaschid dukhabhāgbhavet (let every one be happy, let everyone be
relaxed, let everyone perceive good, and let not any one suffer from pain); - sarve janāha
sukhino bhavantu (let all persons become happy) and lokāha samastāha sukhino
bhavantu (let the whole universe become happy). These prayers reverberate in Indian
homes and āshrams even today. Then what else they mean? What type of happiness or
well-being they represent? These questions can be answered with reference to the
perspectives rooted in spiritual worldview.
The search for nitya and satya, by seers and saints of Upanishadic traditions, 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 (jnānam) and Infinity
(anantam) are its signs. It is the same Brahman that also underlies our experience of
9
2006
personal existence and consciousness. The personal aspect of this 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). In this lies the true
wellbeing (swāsthya) and welfare (kalyāna) of one and all because at that ‘height of non-
dual consciousness’, there is no difference of self and the other in a narrow sense. This is
the transcendental perspective.
Happiness and well being according to transcendental perspective is ‘subjective’
in the sense that they do not depend on any objective conditions of reality, including
one’s state of body-mind also. It is interesting to note here that even western researchers
in this field have documented the limitations of materialistic outlook in bringing
happiness and well-being and have been voicing such an opinion, though they may not go
that far as our seers and saints have gone. 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. Kammann (1983) has gone a step ahead in suggesting that
“objective life circumstances have a negligible role to play in a theory of happiness”
(cited in Myers, 2000, p.60). Myers (2000) observes that “William Cowper’s 1782 hunch
10
2006
appears correct: Happiness depends, as Nature shows, Less on exterior things than most
suppose” (p.65).
Further, transcendental view is rooted in an all-encompassing universal vision,
which aspires for the well being of everyone in the universe. 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 (Kiran Kumar, 2003).
The transcendental view involves an analysis of the nature and conditions of
happiness, satisfaction and fulfilment. The ancient Indian thinkers have provided
elaborate understanding about the limitations of artha (wealth) and kāma (desires), how
human beings experience frustration and anger, what is the role of temperament and
personality in the feeling of well-being, what is truly satisfying or fulfilling, and what the
ideal state of well-being is. Ānanda and stitaprajnatva are the defining characteristics of
happiness and well-being from transcendent perspective. It is the ideal upheld in our
traditions as the ultimate in well being (Kiran Kumar, 2003, 2004).
The collectivist perspective lies in between the hedonistic and the transcendent
perspectives. Collective perspective is socially oriented and is governed by the concept
dharma. The term dharma is derived from the Sanskrit root dhr, which means to uphold,
to sustain, and to hold together. Dharma is used with different shades of meaning, in a
context specific way in Indian traditions. Dharma has different connotations like law,
11
2006
justice, customary morality, duty and conscience. It is also used with different prefixes to
refer to different aspects like sanātana dharma, mānava dharma, āshrama dharma, varna
dharma, svadharma and yugadharma. Sanātana dharma represents eternal values.
Mānava dharma refers to all human beings sans all kinds of distinctions, which is
universal. Svadharma represent a person’s intrinsic nature. Varna dharma refers to
predispositions, duties, obligations, and rights of different groups of people. Āshrama
dharma refers to duties, obligations, and rights of different stages of life. Yuga dharma
refers to values of a particular period (Kuppuswamy, 1977). Thus ancient thinkers tried
to use this umbrella concept to cover all aspects of value life.
Dharma connotes precepts that aim at securing the material and spiritual
sustenance and growth of the individual and society. Dharma was conceptualized as a
dynamic concept and the content of dharma often changed with changing contexts of
time, place and social environment (Dandekar, 1963). The different types of dharma
referred above represent those contexts and provided a philosophy of life and helped
people to live positively at individual and group level in ancient times. Broadly
speaking, the concept dharma stands for the fundamental order in social affairs and in
moral life and is a principle which maintains the stability of society (Kuppuswamy,
1977). Thus our ancient and modern seers and saints have laid greater emphasis on the
value dimension of spirituality than on the esoteric to guide people through their lives.
The characteristics of mānava dharma include contentment, forgiveness, self
control, abstention from unrighteously appropriating anything, following the rules of
purification, disciplining the organs, wisdom, knowledge, truthfulness, abstention from
12
2006
anger (Manu VI: 92 quoted in Kuppuswamy, 1977). We find Kautilya listing the
following as characteristics of mānava dharma: harmlessness, truthfulness, purity,
wisdom, freedom from spite, abstinence from cruelty, forgiveness (Kuppuswamy, 1977).
Svadharma, the intrinsic nature of a person is described by Sri Aurobindo 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” (1966, p.30) (cited in Kuppuswamy, 1977).
Referring to the relative significance of dharma, artha and kāma. Manu has this
to say. “Some declare that the chief good of man consists in dharma and artha, others
place it in the gratification of kāma 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
(Kuppuswamy, 1977, p.60).
The collective 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. Keeping this in sight the Indian seer and sage established a social framework
and ground rules for good life, which ensures the well-being of all in a society by giving
equal importance to dharma ,artha, and kāma (Kiran Kumar, 2004).
Conceptions of happiness and well-being and the discussions and debate that has
been going on from thousands year in our country, revolve around the above three
13
2006
perspectives. We can find them not only in the Vedas, Upanishads, Purānas, and in epics
like Rāmāyana and Mahābhāratha, we can also find them in Jainism and Buddhism as
well though they differ from orthodox traditions on certain issues. We find the
discussions of the three perspectives in all literary works in all Indian languages.
The contemporary value crisis that prompted Seligman and others to spearhead
positive psychology is a reflection of the failure of modern western society on dhārmic
plane. Shreyas is not possible, because there is greater emphasis on artha and kāma.
Researchers have realized this very much and are calling for reorientation in values in
western society.
This position leads us to certain questions. Why then human beings are so much
after extrinsic goals. Do they really give us happiness and well-being? If so, in what
sense? Which of them are important? How one can move away from them and find the
source of well-being within? What are the characteristics of those who are satisfied in
one’s self? Such questions have been answered in Indian traditions with respect to the
conception of human nature, the notion of human identity and self, and goals of human
existence.
A theory of well-being rooted in Indian perspectives
The three perspectives are not only rooted in a worldview, they also involve a
particular view of human nature, which can be placed on a continuum of evolution, as
understood by Indian sages and seers, from animal to human and to divine. Within this
evolutionary framework of human nature, meaning and purpose of human existence can
14
2006
get 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 (rākshasa gana –
demonic group). Those who are human in the sense the term is generally used to
differentiate man from animals (manushya gana – human group). And those who express
divine qualities such as altruism, compassion, love, and transcendence (daiva gana –
divine group). The hedonic perspective goes along with a biological view of man that
treats ‘man as another animal’. The collective perspective views ‘man as a social being
interdependent on others’. The transcendent perspective holds that ‘man is essentially
spiritual in nature and has divine potentialities to be actualized’. Therefore, the
definitions of happiness and well-being are integrally related to how one view at the
nature of man and what perspective is valued in a culture. Statistically speaking, a vast
majority of humans share collective perspective occupying the area comprising the
second and third quartile of a normal probability curve, with those sharing a limited
concept of hedonistic view and the transcendental view occupying first and fourth
quartiles respectively (Kiran Kumar, 2003)..
While animal nature is associated with a crude variety of hedonism of a biological
nature, humans by and large are said to be governed by a broader conception of
hedonism. Ryan and Deci (2001) note that hedonism as a view of well-being has varied
15
2006
from a relatively narrow focus on bodily pleasures to a broad focus on appetites and self-
interest and psychologists who have adopted this view have tended to focus on a broad
conception that includes the preferences and pleasures of the mind as well as the body.
Kahneman et al (1999) in their book Well-being: The Foundations of Hedonic
Psychology define hedonic psychology as the study of “what makes experiences and life
pleasant and unpleasant” (p. ix). Within this paradigm, well-being and hedonism are
essentially equivalent and the predominant view among hedonic psychologists is that
“well-being consists of subjective happiness and concerns the experience of pleasure
versus displeasure broadly construed to include all judgements about the good/bad
elements of life” (Ryan and Deci, 2001, p. 144). Deiner’s (1984) concept of subjective
well-being (SWB), which consists of three components viz., life satisfaction, the presence
of positive mood, and the low negative mood, together often summarized as happiness,
has been the most frequently used way of assessing well-being by researchers who adhere
to hedonic psychology. Hedonic enjoyment is more related to being relaxed, away from
problems and happy (Ryan and Deci, 2001).
The concept of purushārtha, goals human existence, is particularly relevant here.
Hedonic psychology is more related to kāma as broadly conceived in Indian traditions
and to some extent to artha. Dharma with its different connotations, which is considered
as the key principle of collectivist perspective, encompasses the Greek concept
eudaimonia and also the distinctions made by Seligman (2002), good life, meaningful
life, and full life. Nevertheless, in Indian thought the ideal well being is understood as a
resultant of the expansion of consciousness and realization of a transcendent Self whose
16
2006
very nature is ānanda. Thus, the concept of purushārtha, goals of human existence,
includes moksha, in addition to dharma, artha, kāma (Kiran Kumar, 2003).
Thus depending on one’s evolutionary status people may consider pursuit of
desires (kāma), pursuit of wealth (artha), pursuit of values (dharma) and pursuit of
liberation (moksha) as the keynote of their life. 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 (Kiran Kumar, 2003).
Those theories of happiness and well-being, which limit to the first three goals,
dharma, artha, and kāma do not appreciate the last one. The biological, psychodynamic
and humanistic perspectives in contemporary psychology have focussed on the first three
- dharma, artha, kāma and the transpersonal perspective focuses on the last. Hence,
transpersonal psychologists found spiritual heritage of Indian tradition a rich source of
theoretical and practical knowledge along with that of other traditions. Tart, (1975)
referred to them as ‘spiritual psychologies’ to emphasize their psychological value.
Upanishadic sages understood ananda, bliss, as the original condition of human
beings and equated with ‘pure consciousness’ or transcendental Self, Ātman. However, a
series of coverings or sheaths, kosha, obstruct the experience of this original condition.
These sheaths are five in number viz., annamaya kosha, prānamaya kosha, manomaya
kosha, vijnānamaya kosha, and ānandamaya kosha. The word maya means being
pervaded. Annamaya is the grossest of the sheaths; being constituted of food which is
17
2006
physical in nature and thus refers to physical body. The word sheath does not refer to any
physical structure beyond this sheath. Prānamaya refers to the vital force. Manomaya
refers to mental functions we study in psychology. Vijnānamaya refers to intuitive
faculty, which is not given its due in modern psychology. Ānandamaya refers to that
intrinsic condition of blissfulness. Corresponding to these we experience different sense
of identity - annamaya purusha, pranamaya purusha, manomaya purusha, vijnānamaya
purusha and ānandamaya purusha. 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 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. Within the framework of the concepts of kosha, our happiness and wellbeing are
ultimately a matter of accessing ānandamaya kosha, which is blissful in itself and “be”
that (anandamaya purusha) (Shankaracharya’s commentary on Taittiriya Upanishad-
Anandavalli).
According to Taittiriya Upanishad, the self-sense of the vital sheath (prānamaya
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. Ordinarily people feel their identities or self-sense with
annamaya, prānamaya and manomaya kosha and remain established at that level. The
evaluation of ill being and well being happen within this limited framework. However,
18
2006
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
sense of well-being has an intrinsic relation to our self-definitions.
The different concepts of happiness and wellbeing discussed are related to
different sheaths or self-sense. Annamaya kosha -trpti (satisfaction of sensual pleasures).
Prānamaya and manomaya kosha - harsha (excitement associated with some events);
ullāsa (feeling of pleasantness associated with the
experience of natural beauty, a good breeze, etc.); santosha (being pleased by some
interpersonal interaction). Vijnānamaya kosha - ānanda (moments of bliss). Ānandamaya
kosha - ānandamaya (pervaded by bliss) (Kiran Kumar, 2003).
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 ānandamaya kosha, ‘I am’ bliss rather than ‘I am
experiencing’ bliss, as a state. Indian seer and sages conceived human evolution in terms
of progressive realisation of these different sheaths or dimensions of awareness. 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 ānanda and shānti (Kiran Kumar, 2003).
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
19
2006
significance. On the other hand, they are those experiential moments when there is
unobstructed manifestation of ānanda, which is our original nature. 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.
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 satva, rajas, and tamas, which represent
principle of illumination, of energy and of inertia. The principle that is responsible for
opaqueness, retardation, inertia, dullness, darkness, depression, and such like in the
20
2006
universe is called tamas. The principle that is responsible for energy, dynamism, and
action is called rajas. The principle that is responsible for brightness, illumination,
transparency, and such like is called satva. 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 sātvic, rājasic and
tāmasic depending on the preponderance of one of the three over the other two. A sātvic
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 rājasic 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 tāmasic 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 satvic, rājasic and tāmasic type. The human evolution involves
increasing sātvic characteristics (Kiran Kumar, 2003).
It is the opaqueness of our mental faculties that obstructs the manifestation of
ānanda. Greater the transparency of the mental faculties, i.e., satva, greater is the
experience of spontaneous ananda. So the Bhagawad Geeta, asks us to remain always in
satva, i.e., to be predominated by the principle of illumination and transparency so that
21
2006
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),
jnāna (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, satva, in a person.
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 (Chapter, II Verse, 22) as follows. “Just as a
person throws his tattered clothes and puts on a new dress, Ātman 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 ānandamaya kosha than on annamaya kosha (Kiran Kumar, 2003).
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
22
2006
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 Self. 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.
Some postulates for empirical verification based on the above theory
Elsewhere I have elaborated on a set of postulates on well-being derived from the
Indian theory and suggested ways of examining them in future research (Kiran Kumar,
2006). They have been just summarized here. Well-being can be understood at two levels
corresponding to two levels of self, Ahåkāra and Ātman. Empirical self, Ahåkāra is bio-
psycho-social in nature and transcendental Self; Ātman is spiritual in nature (Postulate 1).
Well-being of past and present are related to that of future. The well-being in future is a
vision of wellness and welfare of abstract nature. According to Rishis, well-being of the
past and present may or may not bring future well-being (Postulate 2). Source, experience
and pattern of well-being differ across individuals and are rooted in one’s svadharma.
(Postulate 3). Well-being varies across developmental span and is defined in the context
of āshrama dharma. It meant that one has to feel happy and contented within the
framework of the stage, which he/she occupied in each period of life (Postulate 4). The
23
2006
socio-cultural environment in which one is embedded as determined by varna dharma
also determines well-being. It meant that everybody contributes for the well-being of
everyone else in the context of social institutions (Postulate 5). Within the framework of
Sanātana dharma, attainment of well-being through spirituality can involve hardships
and negative emotional states (Postulate 6). For suggestions on carrying out empirical
research based on the theory and postulates one may refer Kiran Kumar (2006).
References:
Buss, D. M. (2000). The evolution of happiness. American Psychologist, 25,15-24.

Dandekar, R. N. (1963). On dharma. In De Bary (ed.) Sources of Indian Tradition.
Delhi, India: Motilal Banarasidass Publishers.
Diener, E. (1984). ‘Subjective well-being’. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575.
Diener E. (2000). Subjective well being-The science of happiness and a proposal for the
national index. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 34-43.
Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-
esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653-663.
Diener, E. & Diener, R.B. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? Social
Indicators Research 57, 119-169.
Kammann, R. (1983). Objective circumstances, life satisfaction, and sense of well-being:
Consistencies across time and place. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 12, 14-22.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential
correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22,
280-287.
Kiran Kumar, S. K. (2002a). Indian conception of well-being. Paper presented at the
First European Positive Psychology Conference, King Alfred’s College, Leicester, UK.
Kiran Kumar, S. K. (2002b). Some inputs from India for the development of positive
psychology. Paper presented at the First International Summit on Positive Psychology,
Gallup Organization, Washington DC. USA.
Kiran Kumar, S. K. (2003). An Indian conception of well-being. In J. Henry (Ed).
Proceedings of European Positive Psychology Conference. Leicester, UK: British
Psychological Society. (Revised version of the paper presented in the Conference).
Kiran Kumar, S. K. (2004). Perspectives on well-being in the Indian tradition. Journal of
Indian Psychology, 22, 2,
24
2006
Kiran Kumar, S. K. (2006). The role of spirituality in attaining well-being: Approach of

Sanātana Dharma (p. 538-551). In A. D. Fave (Ed.) Dimensions of well-being. Milano,
Italy: Franco Angeli.
Kuppuswamy, B. (1977). Dharma and society- A study in social values. Delhi, India:
The Macmillan Co. of India Ltd.
Lopez, S. J. and Snyder, C. R (2003). Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of
models and measures. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Maslow, A. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Penguin Books.
Myers, D.G. (2000). The funds, friends and faith of happy people. American
Psychologist, 55 (1), 56-67.
Raju, P. T. (1992). The philosophical traditions of India. New Delhi: Motilal
Banarasidass Pub. Ltd.
Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of
research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141-
166.
Seligman, M.E.P. (2002). Authentic Happiness. New York: The Free Press – A Division
of Simon & Schuster.
Seligman, M.E.P., & Csikszentmihalyi M. (2000). Positive psychology: An Introduction.
American Psychologist, 55, (1), 5-14.
Sinha J. (1985). Indian Psychology Vol. 2 Emotion. New Delhi: Motilal Banarasidas.
Snyder, C. R and Lopez, S. J. (2002). Handbook of positive psychology. New York:
Oxford University.
Tart, C. T. (1969). Altered states of consciousness: A book of readings. New York: John
Wiley & Sons
Tart, C. T. (1975). Transpersonal psychologies. San Francisco: Harper Colophon Books.
Wissing, M. & van Eden, C. (2002). Empirical clarification of the nature of psychological
well-being. South African Journal of Psychology, 32(1), 32-44.
Wissing, M, Wissing, J., du Tou, M., & Temane, M. (2002). Towards a g-factor in
psychological well-being. Paper presented in 8th Annual South African Psychology
Congress. Cape Town, South Africa, 24-27 Sept.
Wissing, M, Wissing, J., du Tou, M., & Temane, M. (2006). Patterns of psychological
well-being and satisfaction with life in cultural context. In A. D. Fave (Ed.) Dimensions
of well-being. Milano, Italy. Franco Angeli.
25

Happiness and Well-Being in Indian Tradition PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Happiness and Well-Being in Indian Tradition PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Happiness and Well-Being in Indian Tradition PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Felicita e benessere nella tradizione Indiana Passagi- Rivista Italiana Di Scenze

HAPPINESS AND WELL - BEING IN INDIAN TRADITION

Nature of happiness and well-being is a matter of debate from times immemorial.

Brief Introduction to Positive Psychology

was held in October 2002 in Washington DC (Kiran Kumar, 2002b). Emergence of

vocation, courage, interpersonal skill; aesthetic sensibility, perseverance, forgiveness,

that move individuals toward better citizenship” (p. 5).

commitment to scientific methodology (Seligman & Ciskszenthmihalyi, 2000).

Researchers have considered happiness, well-being and optimal functioning as the

which encompass all its concerns.

Positive psychological concepts and perspectives in Indian traditions

questions related to quality of human existence as it happened in Athens in 5th century

well-being offered by ancient Greeks (Ryan and Deci, 2001).

universe. They applied this distinction in understanding everything in the universe:

etc., (Sinha, J.1985).

Underlying any concept of quality of life, happiness, and wellbeing is a

spiritual worldviews espoused in ancient times leading to different perspectives, hedonic,

collective and transcendental (Kiran Kumar, 2003, 2004).

There existed an exclusively materialist view according to which fulfilment of

Chārvāka (‘sweet-tongued’) probably because he supported what most human beings

also popularly known as Chārvāka Philosophy and as Lokāyata (Raju, 1992).

Chārvāka epistemology is thoroughgoing positivism, which admits the reality of

perceive. Followers of this philosophy considered being conscious as the peculiar

quality and self-awareness as an adventitious property of physical body itself. Mind

disobedience of which brings punishment…if he is clever enough to circumvent them,

happiness and satisfaction according to this perspective, which involves maximizing

being, which is quite familiar to most people across the globe.

Though Chārvāka philosophy never gained prominence in ancient India as a way

of life, in contemporary times we see that under the influence of westernization,

happiness/well-being. Many studies conducted on subjective well-being (Diener, 2000;

life” from “pleasant life”.

so on, in a leap of transcendence from the ordinary consciousness to spiritual dimension

goals (Kiran Kumar, 2004).

Indian traditions recognize two aspects of spirituality viz., (a) experiencing

Maslowian terms “metamotivation” or “Being needs” and “Being-values”. Positive

transpersonal psychologists. These two aspects of spirituality lead to two different

pashyantu, mā kaschid dukhabhāgbhavet (let every one be happy, let everyone be

perspectives rooted in spiritual worldview.

to the formulation of an ultimate principle called Brahman, also known as shuddha

substratum of the universe. Existence (satyam), Consciousness (jnānam) and Infinity

substratum of the universe they called Atman, transcendental Self.

the transcendental perspective.

Happiness and well being according to transcendental perspective is ‘subjective’

in this field have documented the limitations of materialistic outlook in bringing

“objective life circumstances have a negligible role to play in a theory of happiness”

Further, transcendental view is rooted in an all-encompassing universal vision,

traditions of India (Kiran Kumar, 2003).

The transcendental view involves an analysis of the nature and conditions of

traditions as the ultimate in well being (Kiran Kumar, 2003, 2004).

perspectives. Collective perspective is socially oriented and is governed by the concept

dharma, svadharma and yugadharma. Sanātana dharma represents eternal values.

universal. Svadharma represent a person’s intrinsic nature. Varna dharma refers to

predispositions, duties, obligations, and rights of different groups of people. Āshrama

to use this umbrella concept to cover all aspects of value life.

The characteristics of mānava dharma include contentment, forgiveness, self

control, abstention from unrighteously appropriating anything, following the rules of

purification, disciplining the organs, wisdom, knowledge, truthfulness, abstention from

following as characteristics of mānava dharma: harmlessness, truthfulness, purity,

Svadharma, the intrinsic nature of a person is described by Sri Aurobindo thus: