Psychology in the Indian Tradition,
K Ramakrishna Rao, Anand C Paranjpe
Those who would make individual search after Truth
as God, must go through several vows as (1) vow of
truth (2) vow of brahmacharya (celibacy and life of
self-restraint, purity) (3) vow of non-violence (4) vow
of poverty (non-stealing) (5) vow of non-possession –
for you cannot possibly divide your love for Truth
and God with anything else. Unless you impose on
yourselves the five vows you may not embark on the
experiment at all. It is not proper for everyone to
claim to hear the voice of conscience, and it is
because we have at the present moment everybody
claiming the right of conscience without going
through any discipline whatsoever and there is so
much untruth being delivered to a bewildered world.
Truth is not to be found by anybody who has not got
an abundant sense of humility. If you would swim
on bosom of ocean of Truth you must reduce yourself
to a zero (elimination of ego).
Truth-realization is the goal of human quest. All our
activities should be centred in Truth. Truth should
be the very breath of our life. Truth-seeking is not
merely a cognitive exercise. It has a much wider
scope. Truth should manifest in thought as well as
in speech and action. How may we realize Truth in
the threefold sense? By single-minded devotion and
practice (abhyāsa), and detachment from and
indifference to all other interests in life while
pursuing truth (vairāgya). This becomes possible
only when one reduces himself to a zero and
nothingness, leading to a state of perfect purity. To
attain perfect purity one has to become absolutely
passion-free in thought, speech and action; to rise
above the opposite currents of love and hate,
attachment and repulsion.
Gandhi shares the Advaita assumptions that the
goal of human endeavor is Self-realization and that
the Self in ultimate analysis is the one that binds us
all. Self-realization in Gandhi is equated with truth-
realization. Truth is also equated with Love and God.
Truth in absolute sense is inconceivable; and yet it
is undeniable. What is inconceivable is obviously
inaccessible. What is accessible, however, is relative
truth. It is what the voice within tells you. But what
my inner voice tells may be different from what you
hear from your inner voice. This is the existential
predicament. In order to overcome the predicament
one needs to do 3 things.
(1) one should be open to the possibility that what
one holds as truth may not be so. Therefore, he
should be ready to correct himself.
(2) the person seeking truth must undergo self-
discipline that eliminates biases, prejudices, and
other factors that distort truth and thus reduce the
gap between the Truth and a truth, i.e., the real
truth and what appears to be true.
(3) Reduce yourself to a zero. The self, the seat of
awareness, is shared by us all at the primary level,
once all personal biases, dispositions, predilections
are removed, truth will appear alike to all.
While human existence is grounded in truth, which
manifests as love, we also find in the person an
opposing impulse that of the brute. This engenders
conflict and moves the person away from truth and
love toward hate and violence. This is the conflict or
the duel between the divine and the devil, between
consciousness of the spirit and the pull of sensory
appetites and selfishness of the body. Gandhi likens
the conflict to the Kurukṣetra where the battle of
good and evil was waged. It is a battle between
altruism/self-sacrifice and selfishness and greed,
between loving others and self-love.
Body is indeed the prison house that locks up the
genuine human spirit. At the same time, body can
also be used as a gateway to find freedom of the
spirit. If the body can be dissociated from its self-
centeredness and made to undertake selfless
service, one gets closer to finding the Truth and the
spiritual being in him. Selfless service promotes love
for others which enables one to endure suffering. Joy
comes not out of infliction of pain on others but out
of pain voluntarily borne by oneself.
10.5 Nonviolence
Gandhi wrote ‘Ahimsā and Truth are my two lungs.
I cannot live without them. Without ahimsā it is not
possible to seek and find Truth. Ahimsā and Truth
are so intertwined that it is practically impossible to
disentangle and separate them. They are like two
sides of coin. Ahimsā is the means; Truth is the end.
Means to be means must always be within our reach
and so ahimsā is our supreme duty. If we take care
of the means, we are bound to reach the end sooner
or later.
What does Gandhi mean when he says that
nonviolence is the means to reach the goal of truth?
It is not obvious that by merely abstaining from
injuring others that one reaches truth. Nonviolence
encompasses more than simply abstaining from
injuring others. Ahimsa is not the crude thing it has
been made to appear. Not to hurt any living thing is,
no doubt, a part of ahimsa. But it is its least
expression. The principle of ahimsa is hurt by every
evil thought, by undue haste, by lying, by hatred, by
wishing ill to anybody. It is also violated by our
holding on to what the world needs.
Nonviolence involves resisting all kinds of injustice,
including social injustice. No man could be actively
nonviolent and not rise against social injustice no
matter where it occurred. It is no nonviolence if we
merely love those who love us. It is nonviolence only
when we love those that hate us. This is indeed
difficult to do. Therefore, practice of nonviolence is
not for the weak. It requires more courage than any
act of violence. Fleeing from aggression is not
nonviolence. In fact fighting even when it involves
violence is preferable to fleeing in the face of injustice
and violence. Nonviolence does not admit of running
away from danger. Between violence and cowardly
flight, I can only prefer violence. I can no more
preach nonviolence to a coward than I can tempt a
blind man to enjoy beautiful scenery. Nonviolence is
the summit of bravery.
Gandhi’s concept of nonviolence has 2 dimensions.
(1) The usual sense of abstaining from violence. It
may also be seen in resisting violence passively by
such acts as noncooperation. This is considered the
nonviolence of the weak.
(2) The generation of active force by observance and
practice of nonviolence. This is the nonviolence of
the strong generated by personal transformation
achieved through suffering and love. Erikson called
it ‘militant nonviolence’. It involves unconditional
love for others and voluntary suffering in practicing
truth and resisting what one considers to be
injustice and falsehood. In this sense, nonviolence is
more than a virtue; it is a force that transforms a
person as well as those around him. It may be called
‘Yoga of Nonviolence’.
Like Patañjali, Gandhi considered vairāgya
(nonattachment to ego) as an essential condition for
practicing nonviolence. The greatest endeavor is
endeavor for moksha and moksha means
elimination of ego or reducing oneself to a zero or
nonexistence. This does not mean abstaining from
all action. On the contrary, it means active
participation in life. In Gandhi’s interpretation of the
Gītā as Anāsakti Yoga, selfless action, i.e., action
without ego-involvement, takes center-stage. As in
Indian psychology, the goal of life is self-realization
and not simple ego-adjustment. Self is different from
the ego in that self, unlike the ego, is not an isolated
identity, but a shared identity with others. Gandhi
wrote ‘I believe in Advaita. I believe in the essential
unity of man and, for that matter, of all that lives.
Therefore, I believe that if one man gains spiritually,
whole world gains with him and if one man falls,
whole world falls to that extent’.
Selfless action is action without ego-involvement,
action devoid of desires for personal gratification
(niṣkāma karma). It is action meant for common
good. It is in a word altruism. It is karma (action)
that follows dharma (duty). Dharma is the moral
imperative. It is that which tells us what to do.
Dharma is a quality of the soul and is present, visibly
or invisibly, in every human being. Through it we
know our duty in human life and our true relation
with other souls.
Entire enterprise of seeking dharma and serving
common good may become too ambiguous and
impractical to guide us. There is then the need to
contextualize dharma. In this context Gandhi
introduces swadeshi and swadharma as collateral
principles for dharma per se.
●Swadharma is implied in the ideal of niṣkāma
karma in the Gītā. It asserts one’s duty as a member
of a community, group, and family, recognizing the
value of social loyalty over self-interest. It asserts
that one’s duties are not fixed but relative to the
person and her stage in life.
●Swadeshi is that spirit in us which restricts us to
the use and service of our immediate surroundings
to exclusion of the more remote. Man’s first duty is
to his neighbor. Gandhi’s emphasis on village
republics (gram panchāyats) is an extension of the
swadeshi principle.
In summary, Gandhi’s conception of human nature
is that man has both the brute and the divine in him.
The person is the battle field of good and evil; and
because of this the integrity of the person is
compromised and he is alienated from truth. The
brute manifests in the form of animal instinctive
tendencies that lead one to indulge in sensory
pleasures and seek ego gratification, even at the cost
of exploiting/hurting others. But then, there is also
a divine streak in man. In fact, it is man’s inner
nature. It leads him to reach out to others, love
them, and take pleasure in theirs. It makes people
pursue truth and realize it in their being. Truth is
indeed God. This divine streak is what is truly
human. Its realization in one’s life is the goal. Such
a realization may be called self-realization because
the spark behind the divine streak is the true self,
which is shared by all humans. Self-realization is
essentially truth-realization. It is achieved by
adherence to nonviolence. Truth is the
goal and nonviolence is the means. Both “Truth” and
“Nonviolence” are essentially ideals in the absolute
sense. However, they become relative when
contextualized. In contextualizing Truth and
Nonviolence, Gandhi arrived at Gandhian practices
including swadeshi, swadharma, swaraj, and above
all, satyāgraha.
The above conception of human nature is consistent
on the one hand with the basic postulates of Indian
psychology and the model of the person, and on the
other hand it is at significant variance from the
Western model which conceptualizes person as a
brain-driven machine. Indian psychology is a
derivative of classical Indian thought and Gandhi
himself was greatly influenced by the Bhagavad Gītā
and Yoga system which are also the springs that fill
the flowing stream of psychological thought in India.
Gandhi used the potent native concepts and
contextualized to make them relevant to the
contemporary conditions.
Truth which is the basic postulate of Gandhi’s
thought refers to consciousness in the context of
psychology. Realization of Truth is the goal of human
endeavor according to Gandhi. This is not different
from the goal of person in Indian psychology which
is realization of Consciousness. In both cases it is
called self-realization because it is the common Self
that binds all humans. Truth/Consciousness is the
essence of the Self. The goal of human endeavor is
not power and dominance over others but love and
sharing. It is not the assertion but denial of the ego.
Again, violence is a part of us; yet, it is not the
human in us, which is nonviolence. Nonviolence is
something we can cultivate to control violence.
Gandhi shared the assumption that people often act
like beasts and seek to satisfy their hedonistic
desires and sensory appetites. But what is truly
human is not this, but altruism and pursuit of
common good. Human nature finds itself when it
fully realizes that to be human it has to cease to be
beastly and brutal. There is the eternal duel between
the animal and the human in us.
10.6 Satyāgraha: A Psycho-Spiritual Tool for
Conflict Resolution
What is satyāgraha? How does it work? Satyāgraha,
as Gandhi designed it, involves total adherence to
truth and nonviolence. Satyāgraha is literally
holding on to Truth and it means, therefore, Truth-
force. It excludes the use of violence because man is
not capable of knowing absolute truth and,
therefore, not competent to punish those holding
contrary views.
Satyāgraha in practice is nonviolent action to resolve
social and political conflicts. It may take a number
of forms such as noncooperation, civil disobedience,
and fasting depending upon the nature of the
conflict situation. The basic assumption underlying
satyāgraha is that it is possible to bring about
personal transformation and to generate extensive
social action through the practice of nonviolence.
Nonviolent action helps to transform the individual
as well as the society in the cause of truth.
Satyāgraha brings the one who practices it and those
against whom it is waged closer to truth. The action
engendered by nonviolent techniques is far superior
to action involving violent means because in the
latter case the solution is attended with undesirable
consequences that are often beyond the control of
the acting agent. Gandhi does not, however,
explicitly state how nonviolent action brings this
miraculous transformation in the opponent. Actual
operation of satyāgraha, whatever may be its
mysterious force, would involve delicate and
humane modes of communication and conversion.
Gandhi believed that ‘there is something in man
which is superior to the brute force in him, and that
the latter always yields to it’. Consequently, social
and political conflicts can be resolved by appealing
to the good nature in people, and satyāgraha is the
technique which precisely serves this function.
When applied to politics, satyāgraha assumes that
government of the people is possible only as they
consent either consciously or unconsciously to be
governed. Instead of rebelling violently against the
authorities, by suffering the penalties and with
patience and endurance, exhibit the force of soul
within us for a period long enough to appeal to the
sympathetic chord of the opponent. But how such
appeal translates itself in practical terms, Gandhi
does not explicitly explain.
Satyagraha is different from passive resistance.
Gandhi argues ‘It is not a passive state; it is an
intensely active state, more active than physical
resistance or violence’. Passive resistance does not
prohibit the use of arms on suitable occasions. It
also entails the idea of harassing the opponent, while
in satyāgraha physical force is forbidden at all times,
and injury to the adversary under any circumstance
is regarded as a positive violation of its basic
principle. Satyagraha postulates the conquest of the
adversary by suffering in one’s own person. The
basic intent of nonviolent action is conversion and
not coercion. For the satyāgrahi never attacks men
but measures and systems. The method of the
satyāgrahi is therefore conversion by gentle
persuasion.
Operation of satyāgraha in the political field took 2
important forms
●Noncooperation: It is refusal to cooperate with any
act believed to be unjust and untrue, and with those
who are responsible for it. It is the responsibility of
the citizen to withdraw his support to the
government if it pursues policies that hurt him and
his nation. Noncooperation is the method to refuse
to be party to the wrong.
●Civil Disobedience: It is is the direct and voluntary
contravention of such laws and regulations which
one believes to be unjust and oppressive. It is a
nonviolent rebellion and involves a positive violation
of the unjust law and the readiness to suffer the
penalties imposed by the state for such violations.
The satyāgrahi may court imprisonment by refusing
to pay taxes. Gandhi believes that when people thus
begin to disown the state, the government begins to
wither away.
Noncooperation and civil disobedience come at a
later stage in the satyāgraha process. Only when
negotiation, arbitration, and constitutional and legal
agitation fail to resolve the conflict recourse to
satyāgraha may be taken. Before launching
satyāgraha one must be sure that the problem calls
for it and that the participants are ready to pursue
it. For a miscalculation on the part of the initiators
may lead to disastrous consequences. Since
satyagraha is one of the most powerful methods of
direct action, a satyagrahi exhausts all other means
before he resorts to it. He will therefore constantly
and continually approach the constituted authority,
he will appeal to public opinion, educate public
opinion, state his case calmly and coolly before
everybody, who wants to listen to him, and only after
he has exhausted all these avenues will he resort to
satyagraha.
Sometimes the conflicts may be accentuated by the
refusal of an authority to communicate with the
people or by a genuine conflict of values between the
authority and the people. In such instances, it is
possible by pursuing the nonviolent technique,
(1) to make authority realize need to communicate
(2) to provide an objective basis to judge whether
there is a genuine conflict of values. This is possible
because all values have their origin in the concept of
common good, and because all men are essentially
good. The basic assumption here is that in the final
analysis there can be no genuine conflict of interests
or of conflict of values among enlightened parties.
Values in their absolute sense are universal.
Inasmuch as humans by their very nature are
altruist, there can be no conflict of interests between
them. What is good for one is also good for the other.
However, in the existential condition, when values
are contextualized and individual interests come to
the fore, there is scope for conflicts. These can be
best solved by exploring the connection between the
ideal and the actual, whether the latter is genuinely
or spuriously related to the ideal.
The resolution of a problem may be brought about
through violent means. The adversary may be
subjected to coercion so that he may yield to the
demands. But what guarantee is there that the
demands are morally right? Wars may solve conflicts
between nations, and bloody revolutions may put an
end to the friction between the rulers and the ruled.
Is there an intrinsic guarantee that such fighting
results in the victory for the right cause? Can anyone
maintain that all violent revolutions yield good and
desired results? Changes and solutions brought
about by satyāgraha are necessarily good. For
satyāgraha involves the suffering not on the part of
the adversary but on the part of the satyāgrahi. The
extent of readiness and ability to suffer without
inflicting the same on his opponent is proportional
to the justice of the cause.
Satyāgraha is the moral equivalent of war. James
asked if war does serve some deep-seated human
needs such as pure pugnacity and love of glory, can
we channel them for more constructive and less
destructive purposes? Can martial virtues be turned
into enduring cement to build peaceful societies?
Satyāgraha addresses these issues in a positive and
constructive manner. Cultivation of courage to suffer
and endure hardships in defense of truth and
righteous cause is a way of channeling the martial
virtues to operate in nonviolent action.
Satyāgraha, like war, presupposes a great deal of
hardiness and discipline on the part of those
engaged in it. It is not something to be used by those
who lack courage. Gandhi says ‘My creed of
nonviolence is an extremely active force. It has no
room for cowardice or weakness’. At times of war,
men know what suffering is like and how to face it.
Satyāgraha presupposes one’s ability to suffer, and
suffering is indeed the central principle of
satyāgrahic action. Like war, satyāgraha also carries
a romantic appeal for heroism and provides an
opportunity to display courage and endure
hardships. Thus, as a social tool to preserve martial
virtues without war, satyāgraha can be effectively
employed. Satyāgraha is also an alternative to war
because, like war, it is a mode of social action
directed toward resolution of political and social
conflicts within and between communities. Just as
war serves as an instrument to stir into action those
forces that do not respond to reason, so is
satyāgraha, a means of stimulating action when
reason fails to produce an impression. However, the
solution brought about by war is not based on the
understanding and appreciation of truth, what is
morally right and desirable. Further, solutions by
war are temporary and will last only as long as force
retains its hold. Nonviolent solutions, however, are
based on understanding truth; therefore, they
endure without disruption by extraneous influences.
Even when the satyāgrahi’s appeal is directed at
people’s emotions, action is always guided by
intelligence, reason, values and, above all, truth. For
the solution is based on persuasion and
communication of truth, not on compulsion and
coersion.
Granting that satyāgraha could be successfully
employed in the resolution of conflicts, how can we
meaningfully explain the magical transformation in
the opponent from adamant indifference to ready
acceptance of the satyāgrahi’s claims? Soul-force is
truth-force. This would seem to indicate nothing but
a simple faith that truth ultimately triumphs. But
how and why does truth triumph? Only when it is
made known. And so the whole process of
satyāgraha seems to be an attempt to expose the
opponent to the persistent demands of truth and
thus try to communicate the validity of his claims.
Conflicts are often due to a lack of communication
precipitated by one’s biases and defenses.
Nonviolent direct action involved in satyāgraha is a
means of making the opponent aware of the
satyāgrahi’s problems and claims. The initial stages
of satyāgraha, such as sending petitions and
conducting negotiations with the opponent, are
precisely the attempts to communicate one’s claims
and problems. Failing this, the satyāgrahi mobilizes
public opinion which is again communication within
the group. He may call for a strike or refuse to pay
taxes. Noncooperation presumably makes the
opponent aware of the need for cooperation with his
adversaries and he may be led to communicate with
him so as to find a solution. If both the parties still
fail to come to an agreement, it can still be
interpreted as a failure to properly communicate.
Ultimately the failure may be traced to a conflict of
interests and values between the two parties. What
one holds to be valuable may not seem to be so by
the other. It becomes therefore imperative for the one
who is at a disadvantage to do whatever he can to
communicate to his adversary the genuineness of
his claims and values. This he can do only by
suffering the consequences of his opponent’s acts
long enough for the opponent to realize the validity
of the claims being made.
The very process of satyāgraha is such that the
satyāgrahi is from the start ready to communicate
with the adversary and expects to suffer in the
process. The suffering involved in the course of
satyāgraha makes him, on the one hand, to see the
opponent’s point of view more fully and thoroughly
than otherwise and on the other hand, helps the
adversary understand the reason, genuineness, and
legitimacy of the satyāgrahi’s claims. One may doubt
if a communication device such as satyāgraha would
persuade the opponent; but should satyāgraha
succeed it cannot be denied that the success is due
to this new communication device.
It is questionable, however, that all conflicts can be
resolved by satyāgraha, if satyāgraha is no more
than a strategy to facilitate rational communication
between adversaries. We all know that there is an
existential divide between cognition and conduct,
between knowing and behaving. Most people who
smoke know that smoking is bad for their health. All
of us subscribe to the ethic that lying is not right, yet
almost everyone lies, some less frequently perhaps
than others. It follows that communicating truth and
what is right does not always ensure that people
behave truthfully and do what is right. Something
more may be required to bridge the gap between
knowing and behaving and close the divide between
cognition and conduct. Gandhi believes that
satyāgraha and nonviolence practiced with utmost
sincerity and strict discipline could help not only in
facilitating rational communication between the two
conflicting parties and communicating truth, but
also to bridge the existential divide between knowing
and being.
The central postulate of the extended interpretation
of satyāgraha is that it generates “soul-force,” which
means that it is capable of not only informing people
what truth is but also transforming them to act
truthfully. This would be possible only in an
environment of nonviolence. Nonviolent direct action
like satyāgraha not only disarms the defenses of the
adversary and opens him up to receive the message
of the opponent and its truthfulness but it also
impels him to act in consonance with truth.
The seeds of the above notion may be found in Yoga
and meditation. Meditation is not merely a technique
of stress reduction in the practitioner, but it has
transformational consequences that are believed to
go beyond the meditator. A consummate meditator
not only transforms himself but also others around
them. People like Ramana Maharshi and
Ramakrishna Paramahamsa are known to have
exerted such an influence on those who visited them.
Gandhi makes a marked distinction between
nonviolence of the weak and that of the strong and
also between suppression of violence and the
practice of nonviolence. Nonviolence of the weak is
limited to refraining from acts of violence, whereas
in the nonviolence of the strong, there is actual
proactive practice of nonviolence born of self-
conviction. The latter is manifested, not only in the
outward practices, but also in inner transformation
of the satyāgrahi. Nonviolence of the strong kind is
not merely a belief system and a set of prescribed
practices but an aspect of one’s being itself. Practice
of nonviolence is more than suppression of violence
in one’s behavior in that it is more than cognitively
apprehended appreciation of virtues of nonviolence.
It is nonviolence in thought and action incorporated
into the mindset of the person and therefore has
become a way of life for him. It seems to presuppose
the development of a certain level of spiritual
maturity on the part of the person practicing
nonviolence, as it appears to be the case with a
practicing yogin endowed with miraculous powers
(siddhis).
Humans function at different levels—biophysical,
psychosocial, and spiritual. Consequently, the
matter of controlling violence needs to be carried out
at different levels.
(1) At the physical level, in addition to the security
networks such as the police, we need to ensure that
the physical and biological factors contributing to
violence are addressed. For example, deprivations
and discriminations of all kinds are significant
contributory factors for the outburst of violence at
the level of the individual as well as the group.
Taking care of them, however, though necessary, will
not be sufficient to stamp out violence.
(2) At the psychological level, there are known
principles that one could use to channel and check
violence. Those forms of violence that are learned
and to which one is conditioned can be modified by
suitable deconditioning processes. One may learn to
suppress violence in one self. This works only to a
degree. Continued or automatic suppression of
violence becomes repressive. Repressed violence is
bound to explode sooner or later unless it is
sublimated in some ways.
The most effective way to preempt violence by oneself
is to cultivate its opposite, which is love. Patañjali in
his Yoga Sūtras specifically prescribes this mode to
overcome the hurdles in the way of reaching self-
realization. Gandhi appears to have been influenced
by Yoga in his uncompromising advocacy of
love/nonviolence as an antidote to violence, which is
considered a vice and an impediment for self-
realization and common good, which are the very
goals of human endeavor. Gandhi strongly believed
that violence may be conquered by conscientious
practice of love and compassion. Thus, cultivating
an altruistic attitude through education and
upbringing can be helpful in mitigating the
occurrence of violence at the psychological level.
(3) Violence can be eradicated at the spiritual level.
Spiritualization of the human condition is indeed a
sure-fire solution for containing violence.
Spiritualization raises humans to a higher level of
being. Spiritualization is feasible and practical even
in the contemporary world. Just as intellectual force
is superior to physical force, spiritual force is
superior to intellectual force. The way to realize the
self is to practice nonviolence.
In Gandhi’s writings spiritual stands for different
things at different levels of discourse.
●At the ethical level, spiritual means for Gandhi
altruism.
●At epistemological level, spiritual refers to
transcognitive knowing and being. His inner voice is
one of them. Gandhi tells us that when reason did
not give a convincing answer to the problem, he had
consulted his inner voice and benefitted much from
it.
●At the ontological level, it is the unity of all. One’s
identity goes beyond the individual self to embrace
all. It signifies the interconnectedness of all that
exists.
●At a theological level spiritual involves faith in God
and religion.
In Gandhi’s thought, these different senses pose no
contradictions or inconsistencies. They are
interlinked in significant ways. What is interesting is
that Gandhi would have no problem if one restricts
the spiritual to only one sense and ignores the rest.
For Gandhi, Truth is God; and therefore even
atheists could not object to that. As it happens, some
people with strong atheistic persuasions are devoted
followers of Gandhi and strong adherents of his
ideas and practices.
Violence is the instrument of the ego. Nonviolence is
the attribute of human conscience. Suffering on
one’s own person, instead of inflicting on others,
awakes conscience. The way it works may be similar
to the “magical” manifestations following practice of
Yoga. In Yoga, ignorance (avidyā) and the ego are the
two mitigating factors that one needs to overcome in
his path of psycho-spiritual development. The same
appears to hold in Gandhi’s satyāgraha as well.
Truth is the insight into the nature of the conflict
and nonviolence is the means to effect its resolution.
10.7 Psychoanalysis and Satyāgraha
Differences between Freud’s psycho-analytic theory
and Gandhian conception of human mind.
●While Freud emphasizes sex drive in human
behavior, Gandhi extols brahmacharya, celibacy,
self-control.
●Psychoanalysis deals with intra-psychic conflicts
and their resolution at personal level. Gandhi’s
satyagraha is applied for resolving social and
political conflicts between individuals and groups.
Similarities are
● There is no fundamental contradiction between the
psychoanalytical postulate that humans are driven
primarily by sex drive and the notion that self-
control and refraining from sex activity are a
precondition for one’s growth as an altruist being.
● From Gandhian perspective, there is no sharp
dichotomy between individual and group/society.
Indeed, they are considered to be reflexive of each
other.
In Freud, the person has a three-tier structure in id,
ego, and superego. Much of this structure is hidden
in the unconscious layers of one’s personality. What
actually surfaces is like the tip of the iceberg.
(1) The id is the primary energy source. Closely
linked to biological processes, it constitutes the core
of personality. Id is driven by the pleasure principle,
which seeks satisfaction of instinctual impulses and
wishes. These impulses and wishes in Freud’s view
emanate primarily by sex-related and aggressive
dispositions inlaid in the person as instinctive
tendencies. The behavior of the person at the level of
the id is guided by what Freud calls “primary process
thinking,” which addresses the above instinctual
urges independent of attendant reality.
(2) The ego is a developed portion of the id. It results
from the manifest conflicts between instinctual
urges and the reality constraints placed on them and
serves the survival need of the organism in their
resolution. The ego unlike the id is in direct contact
with reality outside. It is concerned with the safety
and survival of the person by reconciling the
instinctual urges with external constraints and
demands. The ego is governed by the reality
principle, which moderates and modulates the
instinctual wishes in the light of the demands of the
actual world outside. Reality principle is steered by
what Freud calls “secondary process thinking,”
which involves such reality-oriented cognitive
processes as logical thinking and rational planning.
(3) The third tier in a person’s psychic structure is
the superego, which again is a development of the id.
The superego incorporates within it the moral
standards and cultural beliefs of the society.
According to Freud, it is the agency that internalizes
the parental influences on the child. “In so far as this
superego is differentiated from the ego or is opposed
to it, it constitutes a third power which the ego must
take into account”. The superego functions as a
source of self-control and leads the person to refrain
from doing “bad” and “evil” things. Whereas the id
constantly strives to seek pleasure by attempting to
satisfy the sexual and aggression urges, and the ego
does reality testing, the superego drives the person
toward shared values and social concerns. There is
a constant conflict and struggle between the
instinctual urges of the id and the norms set by the
super ego that creates tensions and anxieties. The
person at the level of the ego adopts a variety of
strategies to address them.
Thus, the interplay between the id, the ego, and the
superego determines the dynamics of human
behavior. While the ego functions pretty much at the
conscious level, the id is submerged in the
subconscious and can be inferred essentially from
its affects.
In Gandhi’s psychic architecture of the person we
find a similar three-way tie-up. Gandhi referred to
the divide in us
●animal/brute vs. id ●individual effort vs. ego
●human/divine vs. superego
Differences:
●animal/brute does not consist entirely of sexual
and aggressive instincts. It is more inclusive and
involves all kinds of gratification. It is pleasure
seeking in a broader sense.
●The id in the form of libido is the only energy source
of the psyche. In Gandhi, there is also the spiritual
source of energy that can be cultivated and
channeled for human development.
●In Freud, the ego and the superego are outgrowths
of the id and the internalization of external
influences. They are developmental in their
formation. In Gandhi, the human/divine is a totally
independent and basic element inherent in human
nature itself. To be sure, it can be cultivated from
within, but not borrowed from outside or simply
internalized from parental and other influences.
●In addition to Freud’s pleasure principle and reality
principle we have in Gandhi the spiritual principle
guiding us to truth and nonviolence.
323

10.8 Gandhi’s Transformation

10.9 Gandhi: An Organizational Guru

10.10 Summary