The Bhagavad Gita as Applied Psychology

Arjuna’s Crisis: The Archetype of Existential Anxiety

The Bhagavad Gita opens on a battlefield. Arjuna, the warrior prince, stands between two armies — his family and allies on both sides — and collapses. His bow slips from his hands. His skin burns. His mind reels. He tells Krishna, his charioteer: “I cannot fight. My limbs fail me, my mouth is dry, my body trembles, my hair stands on end” (1.29-30).

This is not cowardice. This is an anxiety attack. More precisely, it is an existential crisis — the moment when a person’s established framework for meaning, identity, and action collapses under the weight of an irreconcilable dilemma. Arjuna’s crisis contains every element that existential psychologists from Kierkegaard to Yalom have identified: the confrontation with death, the paralysis of radical freedom, the dissolution of meaning, and the isolation of being the one who must choose.

What makes the Gita profound psychology — not just mythology — is that Krishna does not simply tell Arjuna what to do. Over 18 chapters, he offers multiple psychological frameworks, each addressing a different dimension of the human condition. These frameworks — Karma Yoga (the path of action), Bhakti Yoga (the path of devotion), and Jnana Yoga (the path of knowledge) — correspond to distinct psychological modalities, each suited to different temperaments and different stages of development.

The Three Yogas as Psychological Pathways

Karma Yoga: Action Without Attachment to Outcome

“You have a right to perform your actions, but you are not entitled to the fruits of your actions” (2.47). This single verse is arguably the most psychologically sophisticated instruction in world literature.

Karma Yoga is the practice of engaged action freed from attachment to outcome. It does not mean passivity — Arjuna is told to fight, not to retreat. It means performing action with full commitment while releasing the anxious grip on results.

In modern psychology, this maps directly to several evidence-based frameworks:

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT): Hayes et al. (2006) describe psychological flexibility as the capacity to act in accordance with values even in the presence of difficult thoughts and feelings. ACT explicitly distinguishes between “workability” (does this action move you toward your values?) and “outcome” (did you get what you wanted?). Karma Yoga predates ACT by two millennia but teaches the identical skill: act from values, not from outcome attachment.

Self-Determination Theory (SDT): Deci and Ryan (2000) distinguish between intrinsic motivation (acting because the activity itself is meaningful) and extrinsic motivation (acting for external reward or to avoid punishment). Karma Yoga is the systematic cultivation of intrinsic motivation — performing action because it is dharma (right action, one’s duty, alignment with the order of things), not because of anticipated reward.

Flow state: Csikszentmihalyi (1990) found that optimal human experience occurs when action and awareness merge, self-consciousness dissolves, and the doer becomes absorbed in the doing — a state he called “flow.” Flow requires precisely the conditions Karma Yoga cultivates: full engagement with the task, present-moment absorption, and release of self-referential monitoring of outcomes.

Polyvagal mapping: Attachment to outcome activates the sympathetic nervous system — anxiety about the future, fear of failure, anticipation of reward. Karma Yoga, by releasing outcome attachment, shifts the practitioner toward ventral vagal engagement: calm, focused, present, connected to the task rather than consumed by its potential consequences.

Bhakti Yoga: Devotion as Psychological Surrender

“Fix your mind on Me, be devoted to Me, sacrifice to Me, bow down to Me. Having thus disciplined yourself, with Me as your supreme goal, you will come to Me” (9.34).

Bhakti Yoga is the path of devotion — love directed toward the divine, however conceived. In psychological terms, it is the most radical form of attachment redirection: instead of seeking security through control, accumulation, or achievement, the bhakta redirects the fundamental human need for attachment toward something transcendent.

This is not regression. It is what attachment theory, properly understood, has always pointed toward. Bowlby (1969) described the attachment system as a biologically rooted drive toward a “secure base” from which the individual can explore the world. For the infant, the secure base is the caregiver. For the adult, the secure base can be internalized as “earned secure attachment” — or, in Bhakti Yoga, directed toward the divine as the ultimate secure base that cannot abandon, betray, or die.

In Internal Family Systems (IFS) terms, Bhakti Yoga is the practice of living from Self — the core awareness that Schwartz (2001) describes as possessing innate qualities of calm, curiosity, compassion, clarity, confidence, courage, creativity, and connectedness. The IFS Self shares remarkable characteristics with the Atman of the Gita: it is not a part, it cannot be damaged, it is inherently compassionate, and it has the capacity to hold all parts of the system with love. Krishna, in the Gita, functions as the voice of Self speaking to Arjuna’s parts — his anxious part, his warrior part, his moral part — from a place of unburdened wisdom.

Neurobiological basis: Devotional practice activates the brain’s attachment and reward circuits — oxytocin release, ventral striatal activation, and prefrontal-limbic coupling — but directs these toward a non-contingent source. Unlike human attachment (which is always threatened by separation, rejection, and death), devotional attachment provides a sense of security that is independent of circumstances. Newberg et al. (2003) documented distinct patterns of neural activation during intense prayer and devotional states, including decreased parietal lobe activity (reduced self-other boundaries) and increased frontal lobe activity (sustained attention and intention).

Jnana Yoga: Knowledge as Liberation

“When a person responds to the joys and sorrows of others as if they were his own, he has attained the highest state of spiritual union” (6.32). But this empathy is grounded in knowledge — the direct realization that the Atman (Self) in one being is the same Atman in all beings.

Jnana Yoga is the path of discriminative knowledge — viveka — the capacity to distinguish the real from the unreal, the Self from the not-self, consciousness from its contents. In psychological terms, this maps to metacognition, cognitive defusion, and the capacity for “decentering” that is the core mechanism of mindfulness-based therapies.

The Gita’s central knowledge teaching is the distinction between Purusha (consciousness, the observer) and Prakriti (matter, the observed — including the body, mind, and emotions). This is the same distinction that mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) teaches when it instructs patients to observe thoughts as mental events rather than facts (Segal et al., 2002). It is the same distinction that ACT teaches with cognitive defusion: “I notice I am having the thought that…” rather than “I think…”

The Gita goes further. Chapter 2 describes the Atman as that which cannot be cut, burned, wet, or dried — it is eternal, unchanging, and indestructible. This is not a metaphysical claim that requires faith. It is a phenomenological instruction: there is an awareness that witnesses all experience but is not identical to any experience. Thoughts arise and pass; awareness remains. Emotions arise and pass; awareness remains. Even the sense of self — the ego, the identity — arises and passes; awareness remains.

This is what contemplative neuroscience calls “non-dual awareness” — the awareness that precedes and includes all contents of consciousness. It is the consciousness that persists during dreamless sleep (Travis & Shear, 2010), that some meditators report during anesthesia, and that appears to be the irreducible ground of subjective experience.

The Three Gunas: A Framework for Mental States

The Gita introduces one of the most clinically useful psychological typologies in existence: the three gunas — Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas. These are described as the three fundamental qualities of Prakriti (nature/matter), but their application to psychology is where the real clinical value lies.

Sattva: Clarity, Balance, Harmony

Sattva is the quality of lucidity, goodness, and equilibrium. A sattvic mind is clear, calm, compassionate, and capable of discernment. In neuroscience terms, sattva corresponds to a well-regulated prefrontal cortex, balanced neurotransmitter levels, healthy HRV, and ventral vagal engagement.

Sattvic foods: Fresh, light, nourishing — vegetables, fruits, grains, legumes, moderate dairy. Anti-inflammatory, nutrient-dense. Sattvic activities: Meditation, gentle exercise, study, time in nature, creativity, meaningful work. Sattvic relationships: Supportive, honest, compassionate, boundaried.

In functional medicine terms, sattva is the state of optimal physiological function: balanced gut microbiome, regulated HPA axis, adequate nutrient status, healthy circadian rhythm.

Rajas: Activity, Passion, Agitation

Rajas is the quality of movement, desire, and restlessness. A rajasic mind is active, ambitious, competitive, and driven — but also anxious, restless, and unable to settle. In polyvagal terms, rajas is sympathetic activation: the mobilization state that can be either adaptive (motivated action, healthy competition) or maladaptive (chronic anxiety, workaholism, burnout).

Rajasic foods: Stimulating — caffeine, sugar, spicy food, processed food. Inflammatory, blood-sugar-destabilizing. Rajasic activities: Excessive exercise, overwork, constant stimulation, competitive sports, multi-tasking. Rajasic relationships: Intense, dramatic, codependent, transactional.

Rajas is not inherently pathological — action requires rajas, creation requires rajas, even compassion requires the rajasic energy to move toward suffering rather than turning away. But rajas without sattva (direction, clarity) becomes spinning — activity without purpose, desire without satisfaction, drive without destination.

Tamas: Inertia, Darkness, Heaviness

Tamas is the quality of heaviness, dullness, and inertia. A tamasic mind is foggy, lethargic, confused, and resistant to change. In polyvagal terms, tamas is dorsal vagal shutdown: the immobilization state that manifests as depression, apathy, dissociation, and collapse.

Tamasic foods: Stale, heavy, processed, overcooked, intoxicating — alcohol, drugs, fast food, leftovers. Microbiome-disrupting, energy-depleting. Tamasic activities: Excessive sleep, sedentary living, binge-watching, substance use, avoidance behaviors. Tamasic relationships: Isolating, neglectful, enabling, stagnant.

Tamas, like rajas, is not inherently pathological. Sleep is tamasic. Rest is tamasic. The dissolution that precedes renewal (composting, the void before creation) is tamasic. But tamas without the balancing forces of rajas (energy) and sattva (clarity) becomes stagnation — the living death of chronic depression, addiction, and existential meaninglessness.

Clinical Application of the Gunas

The gunas provide a simple, powerful diagnostic and therapeutic framework:

Assessment: What is the patient’s dominant guna right now?

• If tamasic (depressed, withdrawn, stagnant): introduce rajas first — movement, stimulation, engagement. Then guide toward sattva.
• If rajasic (anxious, driven, overwhelmed): introduce sattva directly — calming practices, sattvic food, meditation. Reduce stimulation.
• If sattvic: support and maintain. This is the state of health.

The sequence matters: You cannot move directly from tamas to sattva. The tamasic patient who is told to meditate often gets worse — the stillness amplifies the inertia. They need rajas first: get them moving, get them engaged, get them activated. Only then can the rajasic energy be refined into sattvic clarity.

This maps precisely to behavioral activation for depression (Martell et al., 2010): the depressed patient is not told to think positive thoughts (sattva). They are told to schedule activities and engage with life (rajas) — because the body must move before the mind can clear.

The Gita and Internal Family Systems

The dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna maps strikingly to the IFS therapeutic process:

• Arjuna represents the system — a human being with multiple parts, each with legitimate concerns.
• Arjuna’s despair represents a part (perhaps an exile) that carries the burden of anticipated grief and moral injury.
• Arjuna’s warrior identity represents a manager part — the one who has always known what to do and now faces a situation that breaks its strategy.
• Krishna represents Self — the unburdened, compassionate, infinitely wise core that can hold all parts without being any of them.

The Gita’s therapeutic process is:

1. Arjuna expresses his parts fully (Chapter 1 — the entire first chapter is Arjuna describing his suffering, with Krishna simply listening).
2. Krishna validates the parts while offering the Self’s perspective (Chapters 2-17).
3. Arjuna integrates and acts from Self (Chapter 18 — “My delusion is destroyed, I have regained my memory through your grace. I stand firm, my doubts dispelled. I shall act according to your word” — 18.73).

This is not obedience. It is Self-leadership. Arjuna does not abandon his parts — his grief, his moral sensitivity, his warrior skill. He integrates them under the guidance of Self (Krishna) and acts from wholeness rather than from the dominance of any single part.

Testable Hypotheses

1. Patients who practice Karma Yoga principles (value-based action with reduced outcome attachment) will show reduced anxiety and improved performance on standardized measures compared to those using outcome-focused goal-setting.
2. The three gunas will map to measurable physiological states: sattva to high HRV and balanced cortisol curve, rajas to low HRV with elevated catecholamines, tamas to low HRV with blunted cortisol and low catecholamines.
3. A psychotherapy protocol integrating IFS with Gita-based frameworks (Self as Atman, parts as vrittis, unburdening as moksha) will produce outcomes comparable to or exceeding standard IFS in a matched population.

References

• Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. Basic Books.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper Perennial.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
• Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(1), 1-25.
• Martell, C. R., Dimidjian, S., & Herman-Dunn, R. (2010). Behavioral Activation for Depression: A Clinician’s Guide. Guilford Press.
• Newberg, A. B., Pourdehnad, M., Alavi, A., & d’Aquili, E. G. (2003). Cerebral blood flow during meditative prayer: preliminary findings and methodological issues. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 97(2), 625-630.
• Schwartz, R. C. (2001). Introduction to the Internal Family Systems Model. Trailheads Publications.
• Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2002). Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Depression. Guilford Press.
• Travis, F., & Shear, J. (2010). Focused attention, open monitoring and automatic self-transcending. Consciousness and Cognition, 19(4), 1110-1118.