Indian Concept of Self

From Dharmawiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Study of self in the Indian traditions, reveals that the core of Indian self is metaphysical, and it has been the focus of study by philosophers as well as contemporary psychologists.

In the Indian worldview, a person is not limited to the physical body, but has multiple perspectives. There is a general agreement that the metaphysical self, Atman, is the real self. The rich indigenous concept of self has significant insights that would be missed by merely following the Western psychological approach employed in the study of self.[1]

परिचयः ॥ Introduction

“What is the self?” In traditional Western terminology, such questions belong to ontology, a study concerning the nature of reality. Epistemologically, it raises issues concerning the nature of knowledge. A third type of issue concerns the questions related to personal identity. For some, as for Locke, personal identity matters in the ethicolegal sphere, since only the same person that committed the alleged crime may be punished for it, not someone else. For some others, it is a deeply existential issue; finding the correct answer to the question “who am I?” is deemed extremely important, for a wrong answer would make a person imposter - living someone else’s life, as it were. The identity issue thus involves consideration of justice and value, and thus belongs to ethics or axiology as well.[2]

The problem of identity thus concerns ontology, epistemology, and ethics, three major branches that comprise most of philosophy as it is conceived of in the Western tradition. In addition, the question, “Who am I?” is directly concerned with both - the philosophical inquiry about nature of selfhood and with practical issues concerning social and personal identity. Answers to this question have profound social and existential implications.

There have been endless controversies in the Indian as well as Western traditions on the putative existence, nature, knowledge, and value of whatever that has been called the self. The problem of identity thus relates to the most profound personal and ideological dilemmas. As such, the discovery of one’s true selfhood becomes a most crucial issue in life.

“Know thyself” was a most important exhortation in ancient Greece. Similarly, in ancient India, Yajnavalkya exhorted that the Self ought to be the subject to know about and mediate upon. The self continues to be an important topic of inquiry to many philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, as well countless other persons of varied backgrounds.[2]

Defining Self

Inquiry concerning human nature has centered on the fundamental question 'who am I'. Attempts at answering this question have progressed in two distinct directions viz., inwardly through introspection and intuition and outwardly in terms of empiricism and intellectual understanding. While modern psychology has relied exclusively on empiricism and intellectual analysis, in the Indian tradition both the methods have been employed.[3]

  1. The 'empirical level' at which the subject-object distinction operates. This characterizes almost all of human experiences be it of ordinary waking state, of dream, of paranormal experiences, of pathological states, etc.
  2. The 'transcendental level' at which the subject-object distinction is transcended. This characterizes what is usually referred to as spiritual or mystical and beyond comprehension for our ordinary waking consciousness.

While most modern psychologists have limited their understanding and discussion of self and identity to empirical level and that too of ordinary waking state, the rishis have taken into account all possible human experiences and states in their discussion and explication of the human nature, of identity and self.[3]

Western Tradition

Allport (1943) identified the following different meanings that the term ego had acquired by the time of his writing: the self as[2]

  1. a knower,
  2. an object of knowledge
  3. primitive selfishness
  4. dominance drive
  5. passive organization of mental processes
  6. a “fighter for ends”
  7. a behavioral system
  8. a subjective organization of culture.

About a decade later, Allport (1955) critically considered seven more concepts closely related to self and ego: the bodily sense, self-identity, ego enhancement, ego extension, rational agent, self-image, and propriate striving. He also mentioned yet another definition of the self, suggested by P. A. Bertocci (1945), as a “knower, thinker, feeler, and doer - all in one blended unit of a sort that guarantees the continuance of all becoming.” Interestingly, this definition of the self is an almost exact translation of the Upanishadic view of the person as one who knows, feels, and acts (jñata, bhokta, karta).[2]

Seminal contributions in defining selfhood came from the works of William James, C. H. Cooley, G. H. Mead, and Freud, whose ideas have continued to the revival in psychological studies of selfhood and related topics. Many other Enlightenment thinkers such as David Hume, Leibniz, Descartes, Immanuel Kant, Skinner and later on Erik Erikson, Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg to name a few, denied or affirmed the existence of Self and proposed modern theories about self and knowledge. In the present article only those western perspectives which are similar to the Upanishadic concepts have been discussed as they pertain to the scope of the topic.[2]

Indian Tradition

Self and identity in Indian Thought.png

In the Indian tradition, the experience of personal identity or the self-sense generically, is designated in Sanskrit as aham (अहम्), which is equivalent to "I" of English language. So, in the question 'Who am I', the I-feeling whose nature the questioner is interested in is aham (अहम्) and it is considered as a function of the mind or mental apparatus known as antahkarana (internal organ). In the ontological sense (ontology is the study of the nature of being), aham represents 'being'. The function is known as ahamkara and at psychological level it refers to all our day-to-day feelings and thoughts about ourselves. However, there are many concepts related to identity and self other than, aham. They are: Atman (आत्मन्), Purusha (पुरुषः), Jiva (जीवः), Dehin (देहिन्), Ksetrajña (क्षेत्रज्ञः), Ahamkara (अहंकारम्), Ahambhava (अहंभावम्), Asmita (अस्मित), Jnata (ज्ञाता), Bhokta (भोक्ता), and Karta (कर्ता), which are used in different contexts with specific meaning and significance. Since Upanishads declare that transcendent Self, Atman is identical with the highest principle of the universe, Brahman, (ayam atma brahma), Upanishads also declare that this self is Brahman or ―I am Brahman (aham brahmasmi).[3]

Many Indian and Western scholars, in the recent decades have studied and presented the concept of self based on Indian perspectives given in the Vedas, varna and ashrama dharmas, samskaras, in the philosophical texts such as the shad-darshanas, the Brahmasutras, the Upanishads, the Itihasas, the Puranas, and Tantras etc., all of which influence the Indian psychological make-up.[1]

In Kathopanishad, the nature of Self is summarized by Yama as the eternal principle in person that never changes.[4]

"This principle, Yama says, is tinier than the atom and larger than the largest of things, it is the One underlying the Many, the Permanent (nitya) behind the Ephemeral (anitya) in the entire universe. It cannot be divided or destroyed; the Self is not killed by the destruction of the body. It is by knowing the changeless Self behind all the changes that one attains immortality."

A few important Upanishadic references dealing with the two central topics of inquiry: the nature of the Self and the nature of reality as a whole, are mentioned below.[4]

  1. Yajnavalkya Maitreyi Samvada in Brhdaranyaka Upanishad (2.3.1-14; 4.5.1-15) which is the dialogue about the nature of Self.
  2. Svetashvatara Upanishad where the nature of self and reality, the origin of the world, Brahman etc., are discussed. Self is referred to as an enjoyer and sufferer in life (bhokta).
  3. Yama Nachiketa Samvada in Kathopanishad where the nature of self is described. Self is experienced when, through the practice of Yoga, the five senses are held back, the mind is undistracted, and the intellect is stabilized.
  4. Taittriya Upanishad (2.1) describes that the Brahman is to be attained through the realization of the Self as the Truth (satyam), Knowledge (jñanam), and Infinite (anantam). It further describes the nature of self as consisting of Ananda (Tait. Upan. 2.5).
  5. Mandukya Upanishad (12 mantras) declares that self is identical with the Brahman. It describes the mode of knowing self, and distinguishing the various states of consciousness viz., wakeful state, dream state, deep sleep state, turiya or fourth state.

It is significant to note that the Self affirmed by the Upanishads is derived from the fourth state of consciousness, the like of which is not usually recognized either by contemporary psychology or by the empiricist or rationalist epistemologies shaped by the Enlightenment thinkers. This is where we can see some of the deepest differences between the Indian and Western epistemologies in general, and psychologies in particular.[4]

Although the Upanishads were concerned with overcoming suffering, they were not motivated by the concern to avoid damnation on the Day of Judgment, as was Descartes. Unlike Descartes, whose “meditations” essentially displayed an exercise of the power of reasoning, the Upanishadic quest was fundamentally contemplative. Indeed, the Upanishads inspired a psychology and a view of consciousness radically different from Western psychology in the shadow of Descartes. By and large, Western psychology has neglected the evidence of the altered and “higher” states of consciousness. The primary reason for such neglect is that the so-called “higher” states attainable through various forms of meditation or contemplation have been considered “mystical,” a term which has unfortunately acquired several pejorative connotations, such as mysterious, irrational, and dangerous. What the Upanishads offer is not simply a doctrinaire affirmation of the Self, plus some verbal pointers to an essentially indescribable Self; they also offer a clear account of what would be attained through the experience of the Self, and suggest specific ways to get it.[4]

Of the six darshana shastras, the Vedanta is the strongest supporter of the doctrine of the Self. The Sankhya and Yoga also affirm a permanent Self.

Terminologies of Consciousness and Self

In many texts we find the two related terms “consciousness” and “self” used and expressed in various ways. In this section, the two concepts are clarified, the different senses they convey and their notations are discussed.[5]

  1. Self (with a capital "S") at the universal level: Absolute and universal (as Brahman in Advaita). The Upanishadic conception of the Brahman is that it is Consciousness and Supreme Self at the same time. Consciousness and Self are considered in their most abstract and universal form.
  2. self (with a lower case "s" and italicized) at an individual level: consciousness as-such, at the level of the individual - without having the role of an agent (as purusha in Samkhya-Yoga), - in the role of a witness (as atman or sakshin in Vedanta).
  3. self (with a lower case "s") at the bodily level: A person who wills, acts and feels, the Jīva (empirical self) in Advaita. Jiva is embodied consciousness, whereas jiva-sākṣin (as in self) is the witnessing consciousness. The term “self” may be used in a general nonspecific sense to refer to self at all its levels, where a distinction is not warranted.
Indian Concept of Self

Indian Concept of Self

Jiva (जीवः), which literally means a living being, is often used in Indian thought as a technical term that is the closest to what is called “person” in contemporary psychology. Jīva is often mentioned in several Upanishads.[6]

Metaphysical and Physical Self

In previous section we saw how the Jīva or the person, is a unique composite of consciousness, mind, and body. A review of the study of self in India reveals that indeed the core of Indian self is metaphysical, and it has been the focus of study by philosophers as well as psychologists. Thus we find a general agreement that the metaphysical self, Atman, is the real Self and it is embodied in a biological or physical body of the composite Jiva (जीवः). This core distinction of Jiva from a mere human body is reflected in the treatment methods adopted in Ayurveda unlike those in modern medicine where a person is limited to a physical self.[7][1]

The unity of the person, despite constantly changing mental states and bodily conditions, is a function of the presence/reflection of Atman (consciousness as-such). Here a distinction needs to be made between consciousnesses as-such identified as Brahman, Atman, or Purusha, and awareness. Consciousness as-such is unchanging and ineffable. It is indeterminate and unqualified, and as such it takes no forms. In the context of cognitive activity, its role is no more than to reflect/illumine the form the mind takes in its interaction with the world through the sensory gateways. Awareness is the result of consciousness illuminating the forms the mind takes. The person whose mind acts through the bodily apparatus may be considered conditioned because of thought, passion, and action are biased and distorted by the conditions of the body. Only an unconditioned person can have the true reflections of consciousness as-such. The goal of the person is to reach such an unconditioned state.[7]

Psychological Self

Beyond the physical self exists the psychological self and further outside to it is the social self, and both these concepts are brimming with cultural constructions. For example, the varna system is an important part of Indian social self, which has relevance for the Indian population and the Indian Diaspora but little relevance for other cultures. The manas or mind, chitta, buddhi, ahankara etc., form the psychological constructs of the person and are critical in understanding the psyche of Indians.[1]

According to Dr. Bhawuk[1], Shrimad Bhagavadgita, explains the relationship between the physical body, sense organs, manas, buddhi, and Atman. Buddhi is the closest to Atman, but if it is outward focused, it guides manas to explore the world through the senses and the body enjoying such activities and their outcomes. However, when buddhi becomes inward focused towards Atman, manas becomes inward focused, detaching itself from the senses and body. They (body and senses) scan but do not desire to acquire anything from the environment. Manas remains in what is referred to as yadṛcchālābhasantuṣṭaḥ (Bhag. Gita. 4.22) or satisfied with whatever is offered by the environment without asking. The state of a Jnani is explained as follows.

यदृच्छालाभसन्तुष्टो द्वन्द्वातीतो विमत्सरः । समः सिद्धावसिद्धौ च कृत्वापि न निबध्यते ॥ ४-२२॥ (Bhag. Gita. 4.22)

Meaning: Content with what comes to him without effort, free from the pairs-of-opposites and envy, even-minded in success and failure, though acting he is not bound.

A person must use buddhi for purification of the self, though it is subtle and does not seem to have any agency. Here the focus is on engaging the manas inwards with the buddhi, gradually eliminating outward attachments and withdrawing from the worldly activities. Apart from the focus, the gunas, sattva, rajas and tamas also play a significant role in determining the decisions the buddhi takes. Ahamkara used in the sense of ego, as in the concept of self in the West and it is because of its value in understanding how we perform activities.[1]

Social Self

Social network is shaped by intricate relationships and behavior patterns. A few important parameters required for analysis and understanding of social and behavioral patterns used in modern research are summarized below.[8]

  1. Individualism: In individualist cultures, people view themselves as having an independent concept of self. Individualists' do not include other people, i.e., the self is independent. People in the Western world (e.g., USA, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand) have an independent concept of self, and they feel a more pronounced social distance between themselves and others, including the immediate family.
  2. Collectivism: In these cultures, people view themselves as having an interdependent concept of self. Collectivists' include other people in their social sphere, namely, members of family, friends, and even people from workplace. People in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and so forth have an interdependent concept of self, and social distance between an individual and his or her parents, spouse, siblings, children, friends, neighbors, supervisor, subordinate, and so forth is small.[8] In India, the collective perspective is socially oriented and is founded on the concept of Dharma. It refers to the codes of conduct that governs the social and moral life and preserves the stability of the society.[9]
  3. Independent concept of self: For an individualistic person, the relationship between self and other people, or elements of nature is sharply and rigidly defined. He takes more control over elements of nature or situations around himself or herself. There is less emotional attachment to others and more responsibility for his or her behaviors.[8]
  4. Interdependent concept of self: An interdependent self has less rigid and amorphous boundary between self and other people. There is a holistic view of the world, where self is thought to be of the same substance as other things in nature. In this view, the elements of nature and self cannot be separated from each other. The relationship between self and other people or elements of nature is much closer, thereby they share interdependence and tighter emotional bonding with members of extended family and friends. A significant point that expresses cultural value of the extended family is the presence of single words to address them. Most Indian languages have single words not only for the members of the nucleus family i.e., father, mother, brother and sister, but also for members of extended family, such as paternal grandparents (dada and dadi), maternal grandparents (nana and nani) and so on.[8]

A model of four defining attributes of collectivism and individualism were synthesized in a theoretical framework in which the concept of self is at the center. The three other attributes are captured in the interaction of the self with a groups of people, with the society and with others as tabulated below.[8]

Attributes[8] Individualism Collectivism
Concept of self Independent Interdependent
Relationship between self and groups of people Develop ties to satisfy their self needs rather than to serve others Try to satisfy the needs of the self as well as members of the group
No strong distinction between ingroups and outgroups. Define ingroups (typically family and trusted members) and outgroups (members other than ingroup, strangers) sharply
People pursue the goals that are dear to them and change their ingroups to achieve them (unwilling to compromise) Requires subordination of individual goals to the goals of a collective (self-sacrifice for collective goals)
Relationship between self and society They do what they like to do, i.e., pursue their individual desires, attitudes, values, and beliefs. Such society values people doing their own things. (Own Attitude) They learn to live with relatives, manage, and act properly in all kinds of social settings by conforming to the norms set in the society. (Follow norms of society)
Driven by their individual desires and give importance to their personal attitudes. Hence they have few norms. Driven by a sense of duty towards social norms in both workplace and interpersonal relationships. Adhere strictly to the norms.
Nature of social exchange between self and others Social exchange and relationships are based on rationality and equal exchange. New relationships are formed for changing needs based on cost-benefit analysis. Social framework and relationships are inherited and valued. Unequal social exchange is present but relationships are nurtured over longtime even if they are cost ineffective. (Communal relationship and common fate)

In an attempt to differentiate the Indian concept of social self from that of the people in the West, some cross-cultural psychologists have shown that Indians have both independent and interdependent selves and are both individualistic and collectivist in their cognition.[1]

Factors involved in Social Self

There are many factors (social, economic, cultural, regional, ecological) that contribute towards the making of a social self construct of a person in Indian tradition.

  1. Identity based on Varna System
  2. Identity based on Ashrama System
  3. Spiritual identity
  4. National identity
  5. Regional identity
  6. Organizational identity

Social self based on Varnaashramas

The metaphysical self, Atman is embodied in a biological or physical self, and through the varna system right at birth, the biological self acquires a social self. With changing times though there is little adherence to the ashrama system on a mass scale, the idea and social construct still persists. With advancing age it is still not unusual for people to start slowing down on their worldly commitments and pass on the baton to the next generation. Depending on which phase of life one is in, the self is viewed differently. Lifestyle completely changes from phase to phase of the ashrama system. For example, as a student one ate less (alpahari), as a grhastha there was no restriction on food, as a vanprastha he ate fruits and roots and as a sanyasi he begged for food and ate unconcernedly about taste. Varna and Ashrama dharmas clearly defined one's occupation and role in the society and therefore, the Indian concept of Self is socially constructed and varies with occupation and stage of an Indian.[1]

Social self based on Spiritual Identity

Spirituality can be seen to permeate the masses in India, and social life revolves around rituals that work as a symbolic reminder that people in this culture value spirituality. Small (e.g., vratas and pujas in a week, a paksha, monthly, annually), and big celebrations (such as the Kumbh Mela which meets every 12 years) mark the Indian lifestyle. Every day is dedicated to a deity and every person can choose a deity of his or her choice to worship. The calendar is marked with celebrations for one or the other deity thus festivities are a part of the lifestyle.[1]

Social self based on Regional, Cultural and National Identities

Most people in India carry a regional identity, which is second to their carrying the national identity, being an Indian. People have regional identities since the Indian states are organized according to linguistic groups. A person, is a Bengali, Tamil, Marathi, Gujarati, Oriya, Asami, Malayalee, Bihari, Punjabi, Sindhi, and so forth. In Uttar Pradesh, people are referred to as Banarasi Babu, Avadh ke Nawab, and so forth in daily conversation, which also alludes to regional identity. These regions are so large that they also have their own special food, clothing, music, art, and literature. Thus, each is a culture unto itself, and only a few hundred years ago many of them also had a national identity. Thus, it makes sense for people to have a cultural identity embedded in the region. There are also similarities across these regions that make it possible for people to forge a national identity. History provides context for culture, and thus, regional identity is important for people in India.[1]

Social self based on Workplace Identity

Organizational psychology covers a gamut of topics like job analysis, employee selection, performance appraisal, training and development, leadership, motivation, job satisfaction, methods of organizing, turnover and absenteeism, workplace safety, and issues of work-related stress.[1]

Opposing Social and Spiritual Dimensions

Indian Concept of Self - Social and Spiritual Dimensions.png

The social self not only consists of physical or psychological traits sampled more often by individualists who have an independent concept of self, but also the social relationships and identity descriptors. Besides these there are other elements of self that get added to our identity box as one advances in career, and acquire wealth, a house, special equipment and professional success. Indulgences to gratify various needs, further draws a person towards the ego-enhancing objects and luxuries. All these lead to an endless, perhaps infinite, growth in our social self.[1]

The realization or anubhuti of Atman attaining unity with the Supreme Being, brahman, is the goal of the human being.

In that paradigm, when one experiences the real self, one experiences boundlessness or infinite state of supreme being. In other words, much like the social self that has the potential to grow infinitely, the real self has the potential to be limitless. Thus, the Indian concept of self expands to be infinite socially and contracts socially for the true self to expand to be infinite metaphysically. This conceptualization of the self is critical to the understanding of psychological processes in the Indian cultural context.[1]

Psychological Study of Self at various Levels

Researchers owe it to cross-cultural psychology, and the indigenous psychology movement in that discipline, to ponder about alternative ways to study human existence, in general, and their behavior in organizations and the society at large. It has also established the need to be grounded in specific cultural contexts. Indigenous psychology emerged due to the dissatisfaction with the solutions offered by Western psychology for social and psychological problems faced by these cultures. Thus, researchers noted the need to develop theories by starting with constructs and ideas found in the indigenous cultures that were rooted in local experience and phenomena and found them to enrich even Western psychology. In traditional Indian thought, psychology was never a subject independent of metaphysics. Thus, it is not surprising that no single traditional work devoted to psychological processes can be found. Shri. Jadunath Sinha was the first scholar to attempt a constructive survey of Hindu psychology, and noted that it was based on introspection and observation. It was not empirical or experimental, but was based on metaphysics. Psychology became established as an empirical science in the West, both in USA and Europe, in India it remained as a part of philosophy. Following independence in 1947, psychology moved away from its philosophical roots to mimic the Western methods and theory. It was also noted that for a long time these Western theories and concepts did not fit in the Indian scenarios and they were treated as anomalies. The emergence of cross-cultural psychology has helped change this "look to the West" thinking, and researchers are seeking local conceptualizations, insights and understanding.[10]

According to Indian tradition, a person (jiva) may be studied from[7]

  • a physiological perspective to assess influence of bodily processes on mental states and vice-versa.
  • the psychophysical perspectives of the mind to learn its functionality, factors influencing, controlling, and enhancing human potential and wellbeing.
  • the psycho-spiritual perspectives derived from the mind-consciousness association to understand and realize about the non-physical resources of human functioning available due to the association of the mind with consciousness as-such.

Thus a person can be studied at various levels; two of which are most highly pertinent to psychology - the psychophysical and psycho-spiritual levels. The various concepts of self, are well grounded in different Indian philosophical and vedantic texts. The metaphysical self is most commonly visualized as Atman, which is situated in a living being as a result of past karma. The physical self can further be classified as sharira-traya (the three bodies - sthula, sukshma and karana shariras) or panchakoshas (constituting - annamaya, pranamaya, manomaya, vijnanamaya and anandamaya koshas). While social self is manifested by the various beings in different ways at different proportions, human beings are believed to be the only ones who can pursue moksha (or liberation) purushartha, enlightenment, jnana (or knowledge), or self-realization.

Panchakosha model of self

Based on the Panchakoshas presented in the Taittriya Upanishad the following classification gives rise to a model of self having the following elements.[1]

Indian Concept of Self and Relation to Panchakoshas[1]
Self Kosha Elements Functions
Metaphysical Self (the I-ness) - Subtlest Anandamaya Kosha Jivatma (Atman Embodied) Kartrtva (doer) and Bhoktrtva (enjoyer)
Psychological Self (Mental and Cognitive faculty) Subtle Vijnanamaya Kosha Buddhi (the discriminative decision making faculty) vijñāna—understanding, knowing, direct cognition, wisdom, intuition and creativity.
Manomaya Kosha Manas, (the cognitive faculty) Antahkarana



thoughts, ideas perception, processing the inputs of sense-organs

Physical Self (Physiological

and Physical faculties) Gross

Pranamaya Kosha Physiological functions of the body Functional aspects of the body such as breathing, excretion, digestion etc.
Annamaya Kosha The physical body made of panchabhutas Human body and its parts such as, tissues, bones, skin, organs etc.


  1. 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 Bhawuk, Dharm. P. S. (2011) Spirituality and Indian Psychology, Lessons from the Bhagavad-Gita. New York, Dordrecht Heidelberg, London: Springer. (Pages 65 - 91)
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Paranjpe, A. C. (2006) Self and identity in modern psychology and Indian thought. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers. (Pages 75 - 92)
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 Salagame, Kiran Kumar. "Concept Ahamkara: Theoretical and Empirical Analysis.” In K. R. Rao & S. B. Marwaha (Eds.) Towards a spiritual psychology: Essays in Indian Psychology. (pp. 97-122). New Delhi: Samvad India Foundation. 2005.
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Paranjpe, A. C. (2006) Self and identity in modern psychology and Indian thought. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers. (Pages 116 - 122)
  5. Paranjpe, Anand. C. and Ramakrishna Rao, K. (2016) Psychology in the Indian Tradition. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. (Page 94)
  6. Paranjpe, Anand. C. and Ramakrishna Rao, K. (2016) Psychology in the Indian Tradition. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. (Pages 129 - 133)
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 Paranjpe, Anand. C. and Ramakrishna Rao, K. (2016) Psychology in the Indian Tradition. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. (Pages 5 - 9)
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 Bhawuk, Dharm. P. S. (2011) Spirituality and Indian Psychology, Lessons from the Bhagavad-Gita. New York, London: Springer. (Pages 10 - 15)
  9. Dagar, C and Pandey, A. (2020) Well-Being at Workplace: A Perspective from Traditions of Yoga and Ayurveda. Switzerland: Springer Nature
  10. Bhawuk, Dharm. P. S. (2011) Spirituality and Indian Psychology, Lessons from the Bhagavad-Gita. New York: Springer. (Pages 5 - 7)