Guna Dynamics can Enrich Transactional Analysis

S K Chakraborty

A good theory of social interaction is fundamental to individual, organizational and societal well-being and progress. Transactional Analysis, the psychology of human relationships, is such a theory that is immensely popular in management literature. Guna Dynamics is an Indian psycho-philosophical theory of human conduct and behaviour that has retained its logical appeal over thousands of years. Yet, rigorous study and application of Guna theory to management is grossly neglected. S K Chakraborty compares the two theories and sketches the similarities and differences between them. He finds that Guna theory is more comprehensive in its scope than Transactional Analysis, and is, therefore, able to explain better, both the industry's impact on environment, and the aggravated negative tendencies in our society. He proposes a synthesis of the two theories for more effective handling of human-relationships. Author of several books on the reievance of Indian psycho-philosophical theories to managers, S K Chakraborty is Professor at the Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta. This article is based on his forthcoming book, "Foundations of Managerial Work: Contributions from Indian Thought."

This article examines a recent theory for understanding human interaction in the light of a much older one. The recent theory of Transactional Analysis (TA) was developed by Eric Berne in 1961. It has been elaborated by Thomas Harris in his popular book I'm OKYou're OK. The theory of Guna Dynamics (GD) is an ancient one attributed to' the Sankhya school of Indian psychophilosophy, and is associated with the name of Kapila. It dates back to around 700 B C. I have been prompted to do this comparison because of the questions managers raise in our programmes on "Indian Model of Managerial Effectiveness." Managers were familiar with TA but not with GD. My comparison shows that not only is GD more comprehensive and better founded as a theory, but-that it can also provide some missing links in TA. Apart from discussing the similarities and differences, therefore, I have attempted a synthesis of the two approaches. For TA theory, I have relied mainly on the books by Harris (1973) and Berne (1976). For GD, I have drawn from Sri Aurobindo (1977) and Swami Vivekananda (1976). A brief introduction to the two theories is provided in boxes at the end of this article.

The Similarities
The similarities between the two theories are many. They are: both GD and TA shed light on the 'why' and 'how' of human interaction and behaviour both use three ego-states as the foundation for analysis. TA talks about the Parent, Adult and Child (PAC) states of an individual's mind, called 'ego states.' Similarly, GD postulates three gunas, namely, sattwa, rajas and tamas (SRT) both GD and TA hold that their three elements are necessarily present in every individual, although in varying proportions

 both envisage a preference pattern in their three elements. GD puts sattwa as supreme, followed by rajas and tamas. TA views the Adult as supreme followed by Child and Parent both employ the concept of stored up mental impressions of experiences. In TA, they are called 'recordings.' In GD, they are termed samskaras both TA and GD believe that an individual can alter the relative supremacy of one ego state or guna over others. Both are intrinsically optimistic both GD and TA deal with the experiential realities of the self, and not merely as cognitive concepts both GD and TA deal with morality and ethics in human interaction. Adult and 'sattwic' Ego States The attributes of the Adult-ego state are somewhat similar to those of the sattwic ego-state. The Adult in TA: is autonomously directed towards objective appraisal of reality (Berne, 1976, p 23) regulates the activities of the Parent and the Child and, mediates objectively between them (Berne, 1976, p 26) transforms stimuli into pieces of information, processing and filing that information on the basis of previous experience (Harris, 1973, p 29) estimates probabilities (Harris, 1973, p 32) is the place where action is, where hope resides, and where change is possible (Harris, 1973, p 61). The principal attributes of the sattwic egostate are: detached concern poise and inner calmness when external events are in a turbulent state ability to see and protect the long-term good, while dealing with short-term issues modulating the abrasive side-effects of rajas, the active principle transformation of the dominant tamas, which is darkness and indolence, into rajas, the dynamic principle.
40

Simplicity, purity, guilelessness, curiosity and wonder that characterize the 'Natural Child' are also embodied in the sattwic ego-state. Sattwic ego state is much more tooit is the doorstep to transempirical reality. Harris (1976, p 227) hopes 'that the Natural Child may reawaken to its worth and beauty as a part of God's creation' through the mediation of the Adult. Similarly, Aurobindo (1977, p 222) tells us that sattwa guna is the mediator between man's lower self and higher self, his lower nature and higher nature. Although the similarities are substantial, there are important differences in the two theories.

The Differences
I discuss below the differences between TA and GD on the following eight dimensions: scope source of theory coping with stimuli ethical viewpoint dynamics of ego states values in social intercourse notion of reality goals and means relating to others. I provide a summary of the differences in Table 1, and discuss each of the dimensions. Scope The scope of TA is limited to the dynamics of social intercourse, for TA takes man as complete by himself. GD, on the other hand, embraces man's intercourse with the entire conscious Universe. It views man as transacting with all creation, the whole cosmos. SRT, the three gunas, explain all modes of energy manifestationanimate or inanimate, human or subhuman, material or spiritual. They explain man's empirical personality and behaviour as well as those of a star, a river, a stone or a cow. This universality- in GD has profound implications for human conduct, not only man qua man, but also man qua the Universe. For example, hu man morality cannot be confined merely to human society. It must extend to the entire Universe. The Vikalpa

concern for ecology and environmental protection will find a stronger ally in GD than in TA. A systems view of this order is missing in TA. The PAC categorization, in this respect, suffers from the same limitation as the 'id-ego-superego' triad of psycho-analysis. Sources of Theory Underlying the basic transaction in TA is 'stimulus hunger,' which becomes 'recognition hunger' through the exchange of 'strokes' with another person (Berne, 1976; p 13-15). Harris puts it simply: "Transactional Analysis is the method of examining this one transaction wherein 'I do something to you and you do something back' and determining which part of the multiple-natured individual is being activated." (Harris, 1973, p 12). The sources for TA theory seem to be experiments on new-born babies, whose 'spines shrivel up' if not cuddled sufficiently, and electric shocks on animals like rats. A lot of confidence is placed on experiments with animals, especially jegarding the biological utility of social intercourse. (Berne, 1976; p 15). The root concept in GD is vasana or desire. It is based on the psychology of normal humans. Vasanas are the 'units' of transactions in human Vol. 13, No. 3, July-September 1988

affairs. Whereas TA legitimizes the hunger for 'strokes,' GD considers vasanas as self-defeating because they reflect unquenchable greed.

Coping with Stimuli

The mechanisms suggested for coping with 'stimulus hunger' in TA differ from those for coping with vasana in GD. TA provides clues and directions on how to respond within the arena of 'stimulus hunger.' GD on the other hand urges the person to subdue, sublimate, and transcend the arena of vasanas. GD theory postulates that man is in essence pure Consciousness encased within a biological form for a time. He is not a biologically rooted entity with Consciousness as one feature. The biological aspect is transient and secondary, the pure Consciousness aspect is eternal and primary. Any vasana or 'hunger', be it from the Adult ego-state or any other, is a destabilizing, disequilibrating force. Responding to 'hungers' by 'strokes'whether in an Adult-fashion or any other limits man's ability to attain freedom. GD believes that by continuously responding to hungers, man becomes more and more vulnerable, with increasing expectations from the external world. But higher levels of sattwa help an individual to appreciate and live by the Biblical
41

dictum: 'The Kingdom of Heaven is within.' Probably more than half of the folk ballads and religious poetry in all Indian languages also testify to this psychological truth. The Adult of TA does not give this message. The externalist ethos of TA implies that the only way to cope with stimuli is to respond to them. The internalist GD theory offers an alternative: do not recognize all stimuli all the time everywhere e.g. angry abuse by the boss. Disciplined non-response can be a much better longrun coping strategyas Mahatma Gandhi demonstrated so well against the British rulers. Genuine non-response to stimuli yields two benefits: it preserves the psychic equilibrium it silently works upon the dormant ethical conscience of the transmitter. The externalist orientation of TA leads to the use of group-oriented training programmes. There is a tendency to 'technique' responses at the cognitive level. This can dilute the much more important task of overhauling the affective component of our personality. The I'm OKYou're OK life-position makes real sense only at the affective level. The psychological practices associated with GD theory, which are untechniqued as such and focus on the individual by himself, appear to be free from this danger of 'fast-food' tendency in many TA efforts. GD theory, therefore, suggests efforts to experience the 'hungerless' part of our identity, which is our inherent true nature but lost to us because of 'ignorance.' This higher Self, beyond the hungerstimulus-response cobweb, is purusha, complete or poorna by itself. The ratrace to satisfy one's endless cravings is self-deception, the very opposite of real freedom. The concept of poorna purusha as the core of human personality is 'positive thinking' at its highest.

227), what is the basis for ethically strong character-formation? In GD theory too, a Parent under the sway of rajas or tamas may not foster an ethical orientation. That is why GD theory seeks a sattwic Parent, which must be fulfilled, not emptied. There seems to be quite a lot of convenient pragmatism concealed in the Adult. Investing this Adult with satttva may help but fall short of the theoretical standard, required for an enduring base for ethico-moral social interaction. The light and purity substance-attributes of sattwa are pre-. requisites for ethicseven if reality exhibits contrary features.

Dynamics of Ego-States
TA does not recognize the transcendent, transempirical component of human personality. PAC-egOstates move horizontally backward and forward. GD has a clear normative view of how the ego states should move on a vertical axis. It recognizes.. a transempirical purusha in man's personality, concealed from his ordinary sense perceptions. GD theory wants us to strive and capture this dimension experientially, by moving upward to; sattwic state. The poorna, transempirical Self is by definition OK and the upward movement becomes the ground for the cherished I'm OKYou're OK state. The most perfect human personalities like the Buddhas and Ramakrishnas clearly demonstrate this truth. They had worked the hard way Up. Managers too can make beginnings in their own settings.

Values in Social Intercourse

Harris (1973 p 209) forcefully argues for a system of moral values as a part of reality in social intercourse. He also says: 'Reality understood through the study of history and the observation of man is ... the tool by which we construct a valid ethical system.' (p 208). Thus, the basis for morals in TA theory seems to be sense-dominated and rooted in the events wrought by man's empirical, conditioned personality alone. GD theory believes that moral and responsible
Vikalpa

Ethical Viewpoint
TA argues that for the 'child' to realize integrity or a sense of wholeness, through his own 'adult', the directives of the parent have to be grounded in reality (Harris, 1973, p 30). In society today corruption, dishonesty, and manipulation have become pervasive realities. How is the Parent to reflect reality in the Child? Does TA theory intend to sever its links with ethico-moral standards? If the Parent withers away, or is emptied (Harris, 1973,
42

behaviour will not result if we operate from our mental, vital and physical selves only (Aurobindo, 1977; p 188). They are housed in the lower storeys of man's personality. They are dominated by either rajas or tamas and hence prone to moral infractions. Only if the transempirical, unconditioned component of our personality, mounted upon sattwa, is activated by degrees, can human beings gradually experience unity. And it is this experience of real unity amidst apparent diversity that .Can be the true basis for morals, in social intercourse. The rajas-dominated Ravana and the sattwa-dominated Ramchandra in the epic Ramayana, bring out the essence of value-oriented Issues with great clarity and force. Do we interpret Rama's compliance with his father's vow to his stepmother for a 14-year exile as the abject surrender of the Adult or Child to the dominating Parent, a la TA; or as a mature and value-strong response, supported by sattwa, to the ideal of filial piety? Notion of Reality The notion of reality in TA is the conditioned realityreality that is conditioned by the inadequacies of our sensory equipments and ego states. Although Berne distinguishes between static and dynamic aspects of reality with examples from arithmetic and chemistry, neither he nor Harris offer a definition of reality. Harris says that truth '...is a growing body of data of what we observe to b true' (p 56). This 'growing body' of data-based truth is nourished by Berne's 'social contact' comprising stimuli-responses. The important question is: what is the quality, the purity of the 'we' who are observing the truth? While GD recognizes the reality of this experience, it does not view it as the whole reality, and hence does not base its prescriptions on it. Reality in GD theory is defined in terms of that subjective experience which is not transmuted, metamorphosed or sullied, which does not wax or wane, which is a flame of Consciousness that is never extinguished. Why does not GD regard objective reality as the final basis for a valid theory of human development and behaviour ? Conze (1983, p 25) expounds the Buddhist thought on this question: "If the value of life depends on contact with a high level of reality, it becomes, of course, important to ascertain what reality is in its own being (swabhava), and to be able to distinguish that from the lesser realities of- comparaVol. 13, No. 3, July-September 1988

tive fiction which constitute our normal world of .half-socialized experience which we have made ourselves so as to suit our own ends. To establish contact with worthwhile reality has always been the concern of the exponents of the 'perennial' philosophy..." It would be equally chastening and useful to understand Max Planck (1931 p 107) the father of quantum physics, on this aspect: "Modern physics impresses us particularly with the truth of the old doctrine which teaches that there are realities existing apart from our sense-perceptions, and that there are problems and conflicts where these realities are of greater value for us than the richest treasures of the world of (sense) experience." Apparently, the reality Harris and Berne are working upon is 'conditioned' reality, termed 'comparative fiction' or 'half socialized' experience by Conze. This is lower-order reality because of the three marks of perversion: impermanence, dukha or ill, and not self. Unconditioned reality is free from these perversions, is unitive, is eternal. Mere sensory or intellectual efforts do not help us to even catch a glimpse of this Reality. What is hopeful for the manager is that a little determined practice of even a few initial steps in the direction of Reality begins to shed new light on his worksituation. Unconditioned Reality. Experiencing even a small measure of Unconditioned Reality requires mindful breathing, mind stilling and similar practices. Put this way, managers might get concerned that their secretariats and corporate headquarters would become ashramas and that managerial effectiveness would suffer. GD theory argues that such concerns are unwarranted. Daily systematic practice or abhyasa by each individual for an hour, and not evasive argumentation, will help more mature and competent handling of conditioned reality. Some rays of light from the realm of the Unconditioned are indispensable for properly managing social intercourse in the realm of the conditioned. This is the sattwic Adult egostate. The Adult longing in TA for a feeling of relatedness, oneness of humans is not empirically provable, asserts Harris. This urge is considered dialectical, with an objective reference point of reality to evaluate moral choices (Harris, 1973, p 212). The direction of this argument is correct.
43

However, if such dialectics can stretch itself upto the transempirical, the Unconditioned, then the concerns of TA and GD. for objective ethics and morals may converge.

stimuli, in solitude, at regular intervals, the attainment of true understanding is impossible.

Discipline of Mind Quietening

Goals and Means

The last major difference between TA and GD is in their goals and means. Harris (1973, p 224) states that the goal of TA is to help the individual towards freedom of choice and change at will. Each person is to pursue this goal by analysis of social contact whose 'advantages ... revolve around somatic and psychic equilibrium,' as Berne (1976, p 18) suggests. That such goals and means of TA need to be closely examined in a different light is evident from the following excerpts from Conze (1983): "People, of course, must have realized some degree of inner calm, and must make some effort to maintain it, before they become convinced that sense-stimuli disturb rather than satisfy." (p 63) "The data on which a worldling bases his opinions are radically incomplete, because the Unconditioned is not one of them." (p 57) "True love requires contact with the truth, and the truth must be found in solitude." (P85) GD theory considers social contact as inherently disequilibrating, although it may provide fleeting moments of satisfaction or equilibrium. Freedom of choice/change will not yield mental peace or equilibrium, if the effort is confined within the boundaries of social contact. The dominance of and subjection to rajas and tamas cause extreme proneness to sense-stimuli, leading to perpetual mental disquiet, and hence to the clouding of the truth which is Unconditioned. Therefore, the exercise of freedom of choice/ change from such a milieu interior is destined to be potentially unliberating, and hence Not OK. True freedom of choice and change, according to GD theory, comes out of an attempt to free oneself from the bindings of rajas and tamas, to be more and more settled in the purity and light of sattwa, and thence to be aiming at the nirdwandwic existence, the state of 'transcendent equilibrium' (Chakraborty, 1987). Without cultivating detachment or withdrawal from sense44

The Adult of TA cannot critically re-examine and re-evaluate its past recordings, or stand back for greater perspective or look objectively at all data, much as Harris (1973, p 54, p 232) would desire them. The discipline of mind-quietening has to be practised and sattwa aroused. A principal method for achieving this is to remember the three perversions (impermanence, ill or dukha, and not self) that cling to all sense-related phenomena. By steady practice our mind can be trained. A practical way of increasing sattwa, strengthening concentration, and managing unstructured time is to mentally repeat the holy name of a Nanak, or Buddha, or Christ, or Shiva or Allah. While waiting for a grossly delayed flight at the airport, or for meeting a government bureaucrat, or enduring a long traffic jam with a will thus strengthened and purified, critical re-examination of our mind-stuff mutations, springing from past recordings, is much more feasible and reliable.

Relating to Others
Firmly rooted in the empirical -or vyavaharika domain alone, TA theory is unable to grasp problems in achieving the I'm OKYou're OK state. In GD theory, on the other hand, it is only at the paramarthika or transempirical level that all differentia can be resolved. Here is a touching incident from the life of Vivekananda. During his barefooted travels around of India, he was once the guest of the Raja of Khetri in Rajasthan. The evening musical soiree at the King's court was adorned, among others, by a nautch girl who was an accomplished singer. The inveterate monk, at the sight of the woman, quit his seat beside the King in disgust. A few minutes later, the Swami heard the wounded girl singing dolefully thus: Samadarshi hai nam tiharo, Mero ava guna chita na dharo... (Thou art named as one with equivision, It's not right that thou casteth me for my evils.) This song completely transformed his mind, and Vivekananda returned to the courtroom as soon as the song was over. Mentally, he was- sorry. He asked her to sing some more. Vivekananda thus Vikalpa

taught himself, and demonstrated to others, that although at the vyavaharika level the I'm OK You're not OK position had to be maintained for upholding the purity of the ideal of a sanyasi or a householder vis-a-vis that of a nautch girl, yet at the paramarthika plane, she was as much the pure self as himself i.e. I'm OKYou're OK. In practical life, it is not always essential or helpful to hurriedly put up a show of I'm OKYou're OK. It is much more important to cultivate the inner emotion of equivision from the paramarthika stand point, where all vyavaharika distinctions' lose their merit. Sattwa guna helps the growth of this power of inner discrimination or vichara. This helps to maintain one's own OK state, and in a subtle, yet intense, manner helps the other to regain his or her I'm-OK state too. My analysis of the differences between TA and GD theories concludes here.

appreciate ... the Not OK burden it carries about' 'Count to ten ... in order to give the Adult time to process the data coming into the computer, to sort out Parent and Child from reality' 'When in doubt, leave it out...' 'Work out a system of values. You can't make decisions without an ethical framework.' The evolving emancipated Adult, by following the above prescription, is supposed 'to come to agreement with the emancipated Adults in others about the value of persons' (or the I'm OKYou're OK, state), (p 216). The books by Harris (1973) and Berne (1976) do not refer to the negating causes listed above. Can they be attributed to or subsumed in the Parent ego-state? I think not. By confessing such dispositions is the individual walking into the trap of the Not-OK state? I hope not. Is the strong, emancipated Adult conceived to control or eliminate these dispositions? I guess not. Managers should ask these questions before accepting the implications of TA. For, there can be no emancipation unless the dispositions listed above are humbly acknowledged, and sincerely tamed. The nirdwandwic-sthitaprajna model beyond the three gunas, in GD theory, shows the way to rise above the negation of values in social intercourse and to true emancipation. A person can truly begin to achieve emancipation by adding the nirdwandwic-sthitaprajna model. Emancipation understood only in terms of defying the Parent represents abject subjugation to one's illgroomed impulses. Transcending Ego-States How to progress towards ego-transcendence is not indicated anywhere in the TA literature. Harris (1973, p 227) makes a reference to emptying; but his anti-Parent obsession makes him interpret the 'emptiness' experienced in religious efforts as that of emptying the Parent only. Emptying in GD theory is the emptying of all empirical ego states. Patanjali in his Yogasutras gives the following eight steps to egotranscendence or true emancipation (Vivekananda, 1976): 45

Societal Negation
There are, however, important societal issues that plague us today. I discuss these issues and compare the way the two theories go about them. One major problem is the negation of values in social intercourse. Twelve insistently recurring causes for the negation of values in social intercourse are:

How is the emancipated Adult in TA supposed to handle these tendencies? The Emancipated Adult and Negation In Social Intercourse Harris (1973, p 93) provides an outline of the process for developing a strong, emancipated Adult. It is: 'Learn to recognize your vulnerabilities, its fears ..." Child, its

'Learn to recognize your Parent, its admonitions, injunctions, fixed positions...' 'Be sensitive to the Child in others ... and Vol. 13, No. 3, July-September 1988

Yama: Niyama: Asana: Pranayama: Pratyahara: Dharana: Dhyana: Samadhi:

non-killing, truthfulness, nonstealing, continence and nonreceiving internal and external purification, contentment, mortification, study and worship of God posture which is firm and pleasant controlling the vital forces through scientific breathing indrawing the constantly outgoing tendencies of the senses holding the mind on to some specific object unbroken flow of knowledge (thought) in that object elimination of all distinction between the knower the known and knowledge.

freedom from liking, fear and wrath undisturbed by this good or that evil swayed by neither hatred nor glee withdrawal of senses from sense-objects as a tortoise draws its limbs into its shell.

Slow but sure progress towards the ego-state of nirdwmdwic sthitaprajna, can bring cheerful serenity (prasada) and calm insight antardrishti into social transactions. And yama and niyama, the two foundations, are the antidotes to the twelve negative dispositions that contaminate social intercourse today. It is difficult to see how the much-maligned Parent-ego state, as delineated by Harris, can alone be the source of such ills. Harris's TA message is (1973, p 216-7) 'I am a person. You are a person' 'If I devalue you, I devalue myself 'I am important, You are important.' But what is the foundation for such an Adult ego-state? It is difficult to see how TA's differentiation based on individual identity, and the exhortation to learn to recognize one's own Child or Parent, or to do the same unto others, will unveil that Adult which sees unity among all. GD theory furnishes a sound theoretical basis for sustaining the ego-state's transition to the sattwic. As Sri Aurobindo (1977, p 249) puts it: 'That by which the one imperishable being is seen in all becoming, one indivisible whole in all these divisions, know thou that knowledge as sattwic' 'But that knowledge which sees the multiplicity of things only in their separateness and variety of operations in all these existences, that knowledge know thou as rajasic.'

Yama and niyama are the pre-conditions for an ethico-moral value system in social contact. Any one can sit down and try simple rhythmic deep breathing exercises, and then follow them with an effort to withdraw the mind from the externals. Drawing in the tendencies, or pratyahara, will then be easy and effective. And with gradual extension of the period at each sitting, one can discover the past recordings, the relative veracity or importance of sense-data. He will experience flashes of synthesizing insight, and transintellectual understanding. Dharana, dhyana, and samadhi are of course more advanced states of awareness. Such awareness is altogether different from what Berne (1976, p 160) describes, in a Tagorean vein, as the poignant feeling that the tree will still be standing out there even after the person dies. The awareness produced by the Patanjali process is called prajna or wisdom, and this is beyond poignancy. And this has been vividly portrayed as below by Lord Krishna, when Arjuna asks his mentor to precisely indicate the characteristics of a sthitaprajna or a man of steadfast wisdom or stable intelligencethe goal set for Arjuna: expulsion of all desires (vasanas) from the mind satisfaction in the self by the self undisturbed mind in the midst of sorrows and pleasures
46

Giving in Social Intercourse

Quoting Erich Fromm, Harris (1973:92) ascribes the virtue of 'giving' to the Adultnot as a parental mandate, but as a sort of joyous self-exceeding. Harris suggests that such 'giving' is concerned more with the preservation of the individual. In GD theory gunas influence 'giving' just as they influence every other behaviour (Aurobindo, 1977, p 239): Vikalpa

 sattwic giving is for the sake of the giving, the beneficience is such that one does not benefit in return; it is to bestow in the right conditions of time and place and on the right recipient (who is worthy or to whom the gift can be really helpful) rajasic giving is that which is done with unwillingness or violence to oneself, or with a personal and egoistic object, or in the hope of a return of some kind tamasic giving is giving with no consideration of the right conditions of time, place and object; it is offered without regard for the feeling of the recipient and despised by him even in acceptance Probably both rajasic and tamasic giving turn out to be game-playing. Since sattwa is the vital bridge between man's empirical or dwandwic and his nirdwandwic or transempirical existence, 'giving' in social intercourseif carefully regulated in the light of GD theorycan be of real help in keeping oneself in society, but not of it. Only then may one really begin to experience liberation i.e. nirdwandwa. A Synthesis My analysis of TA and GD theories, has convinced me that GD can enrich TA in both theory and practice. I have, therefore, crossed the PAC in TA with SRT in GD as in Figure 1 to show the combinations of the three ego-states of TA with the three gunas of GD. Once the cell governing a given situation is identified, an individual should be able to plan a proper approach towards self-change. I give some scenarios.

Scenarios I believe that the Indian manager will gain immensely if he works sincerely towards impregnating his appreciation of TA with an internalization of GD. TA is a product of the left-brained, extrovert Western temper; GD of the right-brained, introvert Easternespecially Indiantemper. This broad generalization is not a facetious one. Some of the deepest of thinkers, both in the West and the East, like Toynbee and Vivekananda, have discerned this key differential. 'Social contact', via rituals, pastimes, games etc., is a process that suggests naturally to the extrovert ethos to structure time and obtain maximum satisfaction from transactions with others (Berne, 1976, p 18). But Indian psychological theory is clear on the point that such an orientation, although unavoidable in real life, is by itself fraught with wide-ranging fluctuations, and hence prone to dwandwic disequilibrium. Therefore, for healthy and value-based social intercourse, the balancing process of 'inner contact' can brook no delay. A determined practice of silent japam is the time-tested means for establishing 'inner contact.' The guna theory is the fabric on which such patterns of 'inner contact' can be embroidered. Those who guide their endeavours along this theory testify to the assured satisfactions from 'inner transactions' which compensate for the gnawing 'existential vacuum' suffered by modern man. No matter how refined and subtle and sincere, a predominantly externalist approach is theoretically deficient to cope with this malaise. An evermore externally dependent personality will tend to be more vulnerable; and such vulnerability can result in ethical indiscretion and moral infraction. TA seems to have painted the Parent-ego state in the light of a tamasic Parent: witness its blindness, its inertia, its restrictiveness, its contaminating influence and so on. But it is equally realistic and necessaryto conceive of a sattwic Parent egostate. The sattwic Parent ego state is the most desirable ego-state to cultivate in the domain of social intercourse, especially at home. For, lying on the 'bed of arrows,' Bhisma, the grandsire of the Kuru clan counsels the victorious Yudhisthira on the principle of ideal leadership behaviour: "While the King (or leader or boss) may chastize or smite the subordinate with his hand, at the same time he ought to weep for ihe latter in his heart wishing him well."
47

Vol. 13, No. 3, July-September 1988

This is the art of practising I'm OKYou're OK from the sattwic Parent-ego state. Sometimes the Parent has to, and can, wield the stick in a state of mind when the dominant feeling is not one of anger at loss of face or authority, but of genuine concern for the well-being, growth and excellence of those under its care. This refined inner ambience has to be built on the basis of sattwa. The rajasic Parent is likely to stimulate, for example, a strong competitive spirit or an abiding urge to succeed in life in conventional terms, but fail to furnish adequate safety valves for facing failures which will inevitably emerge on the path to achievementin one form or the othersooner or later. 'Seek pleasure, avoid pain' is likely to be the gospel of both the- rajasic Parent and rajasic Adult. This is unrealistic. Sattwa recognizes that pleasure and pain are but two sides of the same existential coin, and to be free means being able to retain a certain fraction of our consciousness above this duality or dwandwa.

It makes little sense to talk of rajasic Child or tamasic Child. Indian literature, Pauranic especially, pictures a child as almost wholly sattwic, or even trigunatita i.e. beyond the bindings of all gunas even sattwa. The Child in Indian thought nurtures no entrenchments, prejudices, biases, strong attachments or aversions over long periods. Wise men of India commonly cite the example of the child as beyond the bindings of the three gunas. So, a rajasic or tamasic 'Child' is 'invalid' because both these gunas are merely multifarious bindings. Sattwa, although theoretically a binding force too, is more a supportive, than a restrictive constraint. To the 'Child', therefore, only sattwa is attributable at the most. Thus, it is the sattwic Child alone which is sensible to talk of. People like Buddha or Nanak, Christ or Ramakrishna, Vivekananda or Gandhi were able to operate substantially from this Sattwic Child ego-state. True world-makers have drawn heavily on this ego-state to inspire humanity emotionally towards the I'm OKYou're OK state. TA literature seems to fight shy of mentioning such exemplars of the I'm OKYou're OK state, not to speak of digging into their lives of sadhana to derive practical lessons. Did not Longfellow sing: 'The lives of great men all remind us we can make our lives sublime.' It is a tragedy that we today tend to be afraid of being inspired by loftiness. Equality in terms of levelling down is perhaps the real malaise. The chief characteristics implied in the Adult ego-state of TA seem to be grounded, causally, in the sattwa guna of GD theory. But the sattwicChild ego-state embraces all that the Adult of TA can manifestand much more. The sattwic-Child has spontaneous access to the purity and infallibility of the Supreme or Cosmic will, as great luminaries have demonstrated.

Sattwic Adult State

The sattwic Adult state is the most desirable one to strive outside the home, in the organizational context. Patanjali advises us to cultivate, for the sake of prasada or mental poise and cheerfulness: friendship towards the happy compassion towards the unhappy gladness for the good indifference for the evil. Our mind is not disciplined and trained enough to be alert, and agile to be able to switch deftly its stance with each situation encountered in social intercourse. This counsel of Patanjali is most practical for cultivating the I'm OKYou're OK life position outside the home. The tamasic Adult would be a procrastinating, excuse-peddling, late-coming, untidy, jealous and greedy organizational member. These real-life features cannot be accommodated in the simple PAC framework of TA. The transition has to be from tamasic Adult to rajasic Adult. For this, some kind of galvanizing inspiration derived from a sattwic Parent or sattwic Adult seems indispensable.
48

Vikalpa

Box 2 Guna Dynamics

Guna Dynamics (GD) is a theory for understanding human character and behaviour. Guna Dynamics starts with the thesis that it is the witness or sakshi purusha, which as the spirit or the vitalizing principle, functions in us through prakriti, or matter. Purusha in Sankhya theory is the sentient but inactive principle, whereas prakriti is the insentient but active principle. Gunas appear to bind the purusha to prakriti. But the purusha is really ever-free, gunas are the constituents of prakriti only. Our non awareness of the ever-free character of purusha is due to the spell of maya or avidya cast upon us by prakiti. The answer to why this should occur at all, (that is the key challenge of human birth) is to dispel this prakriti induced cloudiness, covering up purusha. 'Personal growth' in GD-parlance is visualized in terms of the degree of success attained in reaching this zone of Light by piercing the veil of prakriti. Gunas are properties or modes or influences of matter, including that of the mind. GD postulates three gunas: sattwa, rajas and tamas. They are briefly: sattwic: substance-attribute of purity and illumination rajasic: substance-attribute of activity and attachment tamasic: substance-attribute of indolence and delusion. The three gunas are present in every individual, but in different proportions, imparting each a distinctive personality, character, and behaviour. Varying combinations of gunas, therefore, permeate all our transactions. Vasanas, or hunger or
References
Aurobindo, Sri (1977). The Message of the Gita, Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram. Berne, Eric (1976). Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relationships, London: Penguin. Chakraborty, S K (1987). Managerial Effectiveness and Quality of Worklife, New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill, Conze, Edward (1983). Buddhist Thought in India, London: George Allen and Unwin. Harris, Thomas A (1973). I'm OKYou're OK, London: Pan Books. Planck, Max (1931). The Universe In The Light of Modern Physics, London: George Allen and Unwin. Vivekananda, Swami (1976). Rajyoga, Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama.
50

desires of all kinds originate in gunas, and take a firm grip over our behaviour. These guna and vasana combinations develop over a long series of existences, and become frozen as samskaras. The mental vibrations of a sattwa-dominated person are intense, those of rajas fast, and those of tamas slow. Sattwa contributes to understanding, rajas to greed, and tamas to negligence and delusion. The three gunas relate thus to the three members of the Cosmic Trinity: sattwa to the preserver Vishnu, rajas to the creator Brahma, and tamas destroyer Rudra. Sattwic action stems from the light of clear knowledge and reason, and is done with an impersonal sense of right or duty or the call of an ideal. This produces serene ananda. Rajasic action is persistently attached to the fulfillment of its own clingings and desires. This produces fiery pleasure. Tamasic action is content with its stupor and inertia, yet is desirous of all pleasures. Behaviour is determined by that guna which dominates the mind at the moment. In its initial stages, guna dynamics implies breaking the spell of tamas by arousing more of rajas. In the next stage, GD calls for the taming of rajas by enhanced sattwa. The final stage in GD theory is to rise above the play of the gunas and experience the hunger less, poorna part of our self, the purusha. As one rises gradually above tamas and rajas, a person gains in purity and illumination. He can then act with greater and greater equanimity and understanding of the play of gunas in his own mind. Rising above, he can also understand the play of the gunas in the other person, and influence the interaction to effective purpose.

Vikalpa