19

Why Am I Here? Implications of Self and Identity for Conceptualizing Motivation

Sunil D. Gaur

 

O Partha, there is nothing in the three worlds that has to be done by Me, nor anything unattained that has to be attained, yet I engage in action.

 

—Sri Krishna (Bhagavad Gītā: 3.22)

‘Why am I here?’, ‘What is the purpose of my being here?’ and ‘Who am I?’ are the most prominent questions that haunt me the moment I stop engaging with my spiralling web of thoughts or doing some verbal or physical activity. For Harshit, my seven-year old son, the answer is very clear—‘I am here because you called me. I want bombs and sparklers for Diwali. I am Harshit’. All answers at one go! Ironically, a quarter-century-long training in psychology has not helped me to go beyond such answers although I have acquired some sophistication in the expression and mastered a bit of academic jargon. But I became also convinced that this analysis is confined to the egocentric perspective of maximization of self-benefits (narcissistic!) without much care for others who too inhabit the world. On the other hand, when I turn to Indian thought, I find quite a comprehensive and meaningful analysis of motivation which aspires for the common good (sarve bhavantu sukhinaḥ). Against this backdrop, this chapter ventures at reflecting on the received view of motivation and examining some of the Indian ideas and concepts that extend the discourse on motivation by placing it in the context of self and identity and broader human values. It suggests that there cannot be any value-free psychology of motivation.

Motivation in Main Stream Psychology: An Overview

I vividly remember that in my first year of undergraduate course I was taught that every behaviour ought to be motivated. The nature and processes of motivation constituted an important domain of psychological discourse. Within its framework one has to fit whatever (normal) human behaviour can be accommodated, and the unexplained behaviour might be left for clinical psychologists or practicing psychiatrists. Academically pertinent questions that motivational theories had to answer were: Why people choose to do certain things rather than others? Why people differentially invest their energy, time and effort into various activities? What is it that gets behaviour started? What is it that causes behaviour to stop? What is it that determines the magnitude or intensity or persistence of behaviour? While going through these questions one can easily notice that among all the questions a signal concern for purpose, directionality, and variability representing the dynamism of behaviour is obvious. Their explanation, however, has proved to be a daunting task for psychologists. They had to infer the dynamism and use the construct of ‘motivation’ as an explanatory tool to account for the wide range of variability in behaviours as compared to the changes emanating from other (supposedly non-motivational) factors or influences such as maturation, learning, or any other variation in the internal or external environmental conditions which may result in approximately similar variations in performance.

The explanation of dynamism was sought not only for bridging the gap in the explanatory narrative of behaviour but also to evolve effective strategies for controlling the dynamism for certain material gains and converting effort into tangible results. Thus it was the intention to control others according to one's sweet wish which encouraged motivational theorization. The level of performance needs to be increased, the level of task involvement has to be enhanced, and productivity needs to be multiplied. It is nothing but the potential of using humans as an instrument of capital formation that has been the major theoretical impetus for motivational theories. Motivation is a (human) resource and that has to be exploited. The organizational theories differ in terms of the possible congruence of work with intrinsic human nature. While some consider that humans intrinsically like to work, others deny this and hold that they need to be motivated to work as, by nature, they are shirkers.

It can be easily seen that the motivational issues examined have been informed by certain premises about human nature in general and about the self in particular. The natural science perspective directed the search for the determinants of behaviour in a mechanical fashion, and the Darwinian notion of evolution offered a common perspective to view human and animal behaviour in general. The early psychology of learning (for example Pavlov, Skinner, Watson, Hull) posited reinforcement (motivation) in the form of need or drive reduction or induction as a crucial component of the theory of knowledge acquisition. In this process a reactive model of the human being following a machine metaphor continued to constitute the motivational discourse for behaviouristically as well as psychoanalytically inclined theories. Pleasure seeking and pain avoiding hedonistic tendencies offered the ultimate basis for most theories and constructs of motivation including its pathologies (for example, conflict, frustration, stress, depression, anxiety). This perspective was also extended to the social domain which continued to emphasize need reduction and homeostasis as its main mechanisms. Self-directed motivated behaviour like exploration and curiosity were marginalized. A shift, however, came with the advent of the cognitive revolution.

The cognitive revolution and the recognition of rationality in human beings led to the emergence of new metaphors which considered a human being as God, judge and scientist (see Weiner, 1992). Understanding actions, plans and goals required handling the question of choice. Accordingly, in the new image, a human being was depicted as a person endowed with the power to rationally think about a future course of action and to regulate present behaviour in its service. Using a micro-perspective, an array of motivational constructs was posited to explain variability and persistence in a wide range of conditions. Following an objectivist view, attempts were made to identify the component psychological elements that predict a given response/behaviour. In this analysis the individual organism was crucial but the notion of a person with a socio-cultural identity was missing. The hardcore experimental analysis of motivation, however, could not explain the complexities of human behaviour beyond a point. The clinical approach drew attention to individual differences in needs and motives and yielded an enormous amount of data showing involvement of various intra-psychic, hidden or unconscious processes in directing and sustaining behaviour. Studies of intrinsic motivation showed that reinforcement may have negative consequences for intrinsically motivated behaviour. The social constructionist framework is now situating the discourse towards the person's social and historical settings.

Besides all this, the notion of a predominantly individualistic and egoistic self does not hold true in all cultures. There is growing evidence that many non-Western cultures as well as subcultures within the Western world hold alternative and less-individuated person concepts.

All these changes exemplify a changing conception of personhood implying nothing less than a paradigm shift. The move is towards viewing persons in terms of a dialectical interpenetration of subject, object and surrounding society. The centrality and sovereignty of an independent and separate self in the Western mould is thus challenged on many grounds (Sampson, 1989).

Is Man a Perpetually Wanting Animal?

It may be recalled that the initial efforts, rooted in a predominantly reductionist theorizing and organized in a positivistic mode of conceptualization used the notions of instinct, need, drive, incentive and goal to answer the motivational questions. These constructs were translated into measurable entities using behavioural, physiological, projective, and verbal measures. It was agreed that motives, primary and secondary, are the specific conditions that direct an organism towards a goal and motivation is any general condition internal to the organism that appears (by inference) to produce goal-directed behaviour. Psychology provides us with never-ending theories of motivation, and management science uses them with great zeal to exploit maximum human potential for increasing product quality and quantity. A long list of motivational factors such as instinct, need, drive, psychological motives, social motives, primary needs, secondary needs, intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation were posited. Motivation was a source of energy and this or that deficiency condition impelled us to act.

The various theories of motivation seem to unanimously agree on a perpetual state of deficiency as motivator. People are motivated to act because of the need to re-establish balance or attain some goal at a biological, cognitive or social level. Beyond the given set of bio-motivators, other sources are acquired through learning. The Humanistic theory of motivation stands on a somewhat different ground. It asserts that people's behaviours are motivated by the desires for creativity, choice, freedom, self-actualization, and feeling of self-worth. The physiological drives, as well as other needs are included. But this model does not go very far. According to the theory, if one is hungry and has inadequate shelter, one wouldn't go to a temple or a church. But the poor tend to be more religious than the rich. Also, it does not account for santoṣa (contentment) and situations in which self-dissolution and self-sacrifice are preferred or desired.

A close scrutiny of the existing accounts of motivation make it evident that such views hardly explain the diverse behaviours people exhibit and the wide range of activities in which people engage themselves under varying conditions of reward and expectancy. It is obvious that humans are not automata. Their engagement in various activities pre-eminently involves their specific ideas of self and identity which provide meaning and energy, and which not only sustain their actions in the course of normal life but also lead to creativity and innovation.

Some Broader Motivational Questions and a Changing Perspective on Self

Let us try to answer the following questions honestly:

• Do we want to be free from suffering?
• Why are we here? In other words, what is the meaning of life?
• Will we ever find happiness and love in life?
• Is there meaning in our everyday activities?
• Do we experience real psychological and spiritual freedom?
• Are we suffering from loneliness, lack of motivation, boredom, pain and conflict in our human relationships?
• Where are we going?
• Is there any hope for a positive change in our lives and the world at large?

My hunch is that each one of us desires peace, happiness, joy, and love in life. The tragedy of nearly all Western theories of motivation is, however, that either they emphasize superficial objects as goals (need satisfiers) or focus on entities and objects which invariably are materialistic. And what people obtain on this temporary planet is a temporary and limited satisfaction which is bound to diminish gradually. Everlasting happiness does not occur in a temporary world. This realization of mismatch has led Indian thinkers to articulate motivation in an altogether different perspective. Here human existence is given a divine status and the purpose of life is twofold—inner growth of the individual, and well-being of all people. The purpose of life is not merely to live for satisfying bodily needs but to pursue greater values, since a virtuous life is a real life.

The analysis of motivation in mainstream psychology, however, has been woven around the construct of ‘control’. It captures and documents the individualistic strivings (for example freedom, choice, and autonomy) which characterize the independent and separate self very close to ahaṁkāra (egoism). It is in line with the much revered idea that competence is the ability to influence, termed as ‘effectance’ by White (1959), which is healthy and adaptive, and lack of it is treated as pathological. It is therefore not surprising to find a proliferation of control-concepts in psychology (Misra, 1994). Control in any form—real, imagined or illusory—is desired. It is held that we have a need for self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

The notion of control essentially presupposes a duality of self and object, which have different qualities. While self is dynamic, rational, and agentic, and has an inherent tendency to influence the object; the object is passive and dependent on the self. This dichotomy also embodies the dualism between nature and culture, thereby implying a hierarchical relationship between self and object. In order to become a fully functioning person having an identity of one's own, requires that one exercises control over the other (object) on one's own terms and conditions. Being a causal agent, the self functions as a great repository or container of abilities, skills, and attributes accumulated in the past, as well as a source of potentialities. Within this anthropocentric view, each person is for himself, in order to satisfy his own needs. This may be understood as a consequence of the Cartesian division of mind from body and separation of the physical from the mental. A person's maturity is evaluated in terms of individuation and separation from the group and society. Egocentricity is central to it. As Sampson (1985) puts it, the Western identity as ‘self-contained’ or ‘possessive individualism’ stands in stark contrast to the non-Western notion of ‘ensembled’ individualism which maintains a field control and has permeable boundaries between self and other.

Culture plays a deep and essential role in constructing the forms and meanings of human behaviour and experience (Gergen et al., 1996; Heelas & Locke, 1981; Misra & Gergen, 1993). There is a growing understanding (Marsella, DeVos & Hsu, 1985; Shweder & Bourne, 1982) that the meaning of being a person is a cultural accomplishment. Studies (for example, Collins, 1991; Daniel, 1984; Kakar, 1997; Kao & Sinha, 1997; Keyes & Daniel, 1983; Kurtz, 1992; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Marriott, 1989; Roland, 1988; Sinha & Naidu, 1994) bring out that the self in Indian and Asian cultures is often conceptualized in relational and transcendental (transpersonal) ways in which interdependence, harmony and sharing become critical. Most importantly, this view holds that the experience of control is distributed and not localized either in the person (internal), or in the situation (external).

The Indian Perspective on Self and Motivation

The Indian tradition construes human existence as part of the universal order. All activities, therefore, are viewed according to the criteria of maintaining harmony across physical, social and spiritual worlds. There is unity in life forms, and all entities are supposed to share common attributes. Existence is organized with the help of the principles of dharma and karma. The idea of dharma encompasses the social as well as natural order. It assumes that at both levels the same kind of processes take place. In this view, there is respect for the idea of shared existence, and recognition that others too like to seek freedom and autonomy. In this sense, freedom and self-determination are not absolute. Instead, they are considered as contingent upon self-control (svādhīnatā) and self-regulation (jitendriya). Thus a distributed view of control is advanced.

We may recollect that the incarnation of the Divine, as the Bhagavad Gītā states, is to establish the order of dharma (dharma saṁsthāpanārthāya saṁbhavāmi yuge yuge) which happens to be the supreme life value. Accordingly, human beings, being part of the Divine, also share this value to discover the inherent meaning of life. In other words, it is not merely to live life as a biological organism but living life with a purpose. That is why it is emphasized in many places that it is dharma only which distinguishes humans from animals.

The term dharma is used to refer to many things including law, nature, merit, justice, rule, intrinsic quality, norm, truth, category, duty, and morality. It denotes something that supports the lives of people. Since it protects it is called dharma. In fact, dharma represents the principle which sustains the world in which we live and is upheld by the people at large. Dharma is neither uniform, nor static, nor absolute. It is relative and cannot be applied indiscreetly to everybody or everything.

Keeping this in view, the Indian psychology of motivation becomes a psychology of inculcating and sustaining values in the context of an encompassing notion of self. The Indian view of self is different from the prevalent notion of an ‘individualized self’ that has dominated Western scholarship, which promotes a concept of individual or personhood in which the boundaries are fixed, and autonomy and cutthroat competition are highly valued and celebrated. Independence from others and control over the non-self stand central. Non-Western cultural traditions, particularly in the Asian region (for example, India, China, Japan, Korea) have nurtured diverse indigenous models of self, which uphold possibilities to nurture other values much needed in the contemporary world. The main features of this kind of self-orientation are: embeddedness in the social context, interdependence, connectivity, and emphasis on relationship. The features of social structure and its institutions such as family, kinship, and marriage coupled with a still largely agrarian economy have made this kind of self-orientation pertinent (Misra, 2001; Misra & Giri, 1995; Roland, 1988). It seems that this kind of relational and encompassing model of self implies a different kind of motivational system. A societal orientation in achievement strivings (Agrawal & Misra, 1986; Dalal, Singh, & Misra, 1988; Singhal & Misra, 1994) coupled with the focus on control over internal states has promoted a shared notion of control (Misra, 1994). The cultural grounding of motivation (D'Andrade & Strauss, 1992) recognizes that diverse schemas of goals are drawn by individuals from the cultural repertoire available, to forge their self-images.

Marriott (1989) noted that in the Indian mode of thought varied codes of action or codes of conduct (dharma) are thought to be embodied in actors, and otherwise substantiated in the flow of things that pass among actors. Persons are ‘dividuals’ or ‘divisibles’. To exist, divisible persons are reciprocally related to objects. Roland (1988) has noted that the ‘spiritual self’ and the ‘familial self’ are important aspects of Indian selfhood. While the spiritual self stands for the inner reality present within every person but realized in different degrees, the familial self is a ‘basic psychological organization’ that enables functioning in the Indian setting characterized by a hierarchical, intimate relationship of the extended family, community and other social groups. Roland has detailed this in terms of sub-organizations such as reciprocity, empathy, we-self regard, narcissistic configurations of we-self regard and a socially contextualized ego ideal.

Empirical studies have shown that the conceptualizations of the Indian self have elements of individualism and collectivism (Mines, 1988; Misra & Giri, 1995; Nakamura, 1964; Sinha & Tripathi, 1991; Tripathi, 1988; Daniel, 1984). As Ramanujam (1986) notes, the individual is part of the corporate system, the whole system, which therefore determines his goals and shares his destiny. Thus, the Indian self is continuous with others and shares the space of others, and is in immediate relation with them. The individual develops through participating in a unity of all things. Interpersonal behaviour depends on the factors of role, place and relationship. The ordinary self is viewed by Indians as highly context specific and only under special moments of revelation or realization a context-free self-feeling is experienced (Collins, 1991). As Kakar (1978) has noted, the basis of a relationship develops through mutual caring, involvement and emotional affinity. This relationship orientation and dependence has implications for organizational behaviour (Chakraborty, 1994; Sinha, 1995). The construal of the Indian self is ‘indexical’. In this conception ‘self is not an entity existing independently from the relationships and contexts in which it is presented. It is constituted by social interactions, contexts, and relationships. The self is created and re-created in interactions and contexts, and exists only in and through these’ (Landrine, 1992, p. 406). The indexical self is not a separate entity that can be referred to or reflected upon in isolation. It includes other people and portions of the natural and supernatural world. As a social being, roles in relationships become important in defining the self and guiding people's behaviour. At this stage a person has options. He may lead the life of a righteous person, acting according to dharma or he may opt for a still higher level of life goals—the goal of liberation (mokṣa). One who chooses to move toward this option focuses on the transcendental reality. In this way human life is treated as full of potentialities and choices.

Ahaṁkāra and ātman

It seems amply clear that the goals of both individuality and relatedness are to be attended to in any comprehensive account of motivation. This, however, still does not go far enough because there is a very strong spiritual or transcendental concern expressed in diverse conceptualizations (for example bhakti, jñāna and karma) and cultural practices which keep reminding us of the purely temporary nature of the bodily, empirical self. As Desai and Collins (1986) have noted, there are two aspects to the Indian self—ātman (conscious selfhood or ‘I’-ness) and ahaṁkāra (mineness). Ātman is supposed to be independent and transcendent of temporal changes and particulars. In contrast, ahaṁkāra represents the inflated sense of personal worth, which is a consequence of the ignorance of one's true being. Thus there is a need for transcending it by considering it an instrument (nimitta) for a greater divine cause or for realizing its potential as a manifestation of divinity, as brilliantly articulated in the thoughts of Sri Aurobindo (see other relevant chapters in this volume). This defines the central task of the motivational theory: to help in realizing the specific constraints and possibilities of one's being; to facilitate the knowledge and (re)discovery of who one is in reality. This goal is nothing less than the emancipation of all.

The Indian, Hindu perspective considers the ātman or inner self as the real self which transcends the empirical self, which is socially embedded, context sensitive and subject to continuous change. Spiritual interiority and social duty are both considered important. The individual (jīvātman) is construed in terms of a structure with five sheaths (pañca koṣas). They include the body, the senses, the mind or thinking organ (manas), the ego (ahaṁkāra), the intellect or instrument of reflection (buddhi) and finally the ātman. The self consists of the ātman which is a spiritual entity. The realization of one's true self or ātman is a state indistinguishable from the absolute reality called Brahman, which is free of both form and matter. Ātman can get fused with the material elements and we in our ignorance (avidyā) misidentify with various acquired identities (upādhis) and develop attachment to them, but Ātman in itself is a non-material self, as opposed to the material or empirical ego (ahaṁkāra).

Ahaṁkāra or ego is held to be the root cause of all kinds of attachment. While it is an important part of existence, if it is left undisciplined it increases arrogance and causes misunderstanding. During the life span from birth to death the body undergoes continuous change and therefore the physically rooted self is temporary (anitya), but people engage in self-adoration and consider themselves as respectable and wise. Practically it is a complex in the mind which furnishes this sense of entitlement. It is thought that ‘the world owes it to me, I don't owe to the world and I am entitled for this status’. This is mānitva and such a person always evaluates, brands, and neglects other people. The human tendency to keep sycophants around and enjoying praise is because of this. Praise enhances self-esteem and we feel elated. It results in dambha or the tendency of showing off. People want that others should worship them and they exhibit and show off to impress others. Contrarily if someone is happy with him or herself (ātmanyevātmanā tuṣṭaḥ) then there is no need for exhibition. In today's world the tactics of impression management, self-presentation and social influence are valued and taught primarily because egoistic self-motives are at a premium.

Realizing the inherent limitations of the egoistic-self motives, the Indian view suggests that one must have forbearance and that if others harm us, we should not retaliate. During our lifetime, particularly during the period of our youth, we are forgiven by teachers, parents, friends and neighbours. This forbearance helps one to grow as it provides opportunities for the same. Egoistic motives, when thwarted, promote the development of defence mechanisms. Thus we take recourse to repression, suppression, rationalization, and intellectualization. Ego processes cause insecurity and anxiety. Tense, in response to external events, a person tries to escape and deny the problem. To this end, the Indian view maintains the principle of ārjavam (straightforwardness) or alignment of thought, word and deed. Ātmavinigraha or control of body and making it cooperative is equally important. The acquired identities (upādhis) tell us that we are limited, while the Indian spiritual view declares that we are limitless.

The excitement offered by sense objects is such that the human mind easily forgets the problems and feels good, and attaches emotions to the objects and memories. This kind of relationship with sensory objects (viṣaya samparka) causes bondage or āsakti (attachment). Āsakti grows with association and makes people more vulnerable. In our ignorance we cling to this attachment. Contrary to it, readiness to walk away from any situation is asaṁgatva. Having equanimity of mind (samatva) regardless of the external situation is therefore a more viable proposition. Desirability and undesirability are certainly provisional conclusions and it is primarily our attitude that makes us happy or unhappy. In fact a sāttvika bhoktā is one who is enjoying his or her life working for the good of others. In other words, it is a kind of enlightened state when a person accepts whatever life brings.

The goal of the higher or inner self is to expand one's empirical self and to develop identity with one's higher and more inclusive spiritual self. This process of enlarging self-identification is dharma and it has implications for personal as well as social well-being. These ideas are directly related to questions of motivation in the context of puruṣārtha.

Puruṣārtha: A Life of Action

The framework of puruṣārtha symbolizes action and effort by a person as well as an over-arching set of life goals. The three puruṣārthas (trivarga) consisting of dharma, artha and kāma articulate a meaningful theory of motivation. The fourth one named mokṣa was subsequently added to it to make it a meta-theoretical view of human endeavour covering worldly as well as spiritual pursuits. Taken together, these four life goals (puruṣārtha catuṣṭaya) furnish a useful perspective for human motivation. Puruṣārthas cover all life's activities including the physical, social, psychological and spiritual domains. Interestingly, artha and kāma are put between dharma and mokṣa. In other words, artha and kāma are to be pursued in the context of dharma and should be in congruity with liberation or emancipation (mokṣa). The Mahābhārata offers numerous precepts about puruṣārthas. Following dharma leads to well being. Life and death are determined by dharma. It purifies a person. Dharma wins and dharma increases by following dharma. One should follow that dharma which does not create problems for others. Dharma is to behave within one's limits. Where there is dharma there is victory.

Karma

The Mahābhārata declares that success in life is an outcome of one's effort. Without karma nothing can take place. The effort is treated as the field and daiva (luck or fortune) is like the seed. The crop is the outcome of the interaction of both of them. One alone is not enough. Daiva does not help without effort and effort by a person intensifies the power of the seed. Thus lack of effort or lack of support from daiva may fail to yield the results. Daiva is not something independent as it is formed on the basis of earlier actions and is therefore subject to voluntary control. A person can change one's prārabdha by performing the right kind of action. In general, the notion of puruṣārtha brings into focus the role of human action in shaping human destiny. Both effort and destiny are important. Destiny without effort and exertion without destiny do not work. But in the end, effort is more important than destiny.

The Bhagavad Gītā states that action (karma) is better than akarma or non-action. The actor enjoys the fruits of his own action, as karma continues to haunt a person. A person whose mind is set on doing work is praiseworthy. One must perform actions without attachment (anāsakta). One must be skilled in the type of action that brings prosperity. The ignorant store only delusions by their deeds. As a man makes from a heap of clay whatever he wishes to make, so does a man achieve various results out of karma. People free from all attachments become free from the fetters of karma. Yet, good and bad deeds are not destroyed. Good deeds result in happiness and bad deeds lead to woe.

An interesting feature of the karmic theory of action is that actions are influenced by several factors. The responsibility for ‘making’ an action is distributed, and multiple causes are involved and no one can proclaim a single cause of action. The Bhagavad Gītā (18: 14) outlines a set of five essential constituent factors that make any action possible. They are: action (adhiṣṭhāna) or body; agent (kartā) or the person engaged in the action; instruments (kāraṇa) or materials; separate activities (ceṣṭāḥ); and divine providence (daiva). Thus any action undertaken is necessarily a joint function of all five constituents. Since action is a natural impulse organized by multiple factors, the contention of assuming authorship by someone and thinking that ‘I am the doer’ is nothing but a sign of egoism (ahaṁkāra) and ignorance. This puts the person on a wrong track because of too much preoccupation with the outcomes. In order to overcome this problem the principle of non-attachment (niṣkāma karma) was put forward. Having an attitude of detachment is found to help in overcoming stresses (Pande & Naidu, 1992).

It may be noted that human life is full of continuous activity in which any action is not merely a discrete response made to a specific stimulus. We are always engaged in a flow of activities. Every action is preceded as well as followed by other actions. This flow of action is regulated through the principle of karma. In this way the present action is determined by previous or past action, and future action is determined by the present action. Thus action is in itself an outcome (in the form of present action) as well as a potential cause (in terms of the outcome of present action). Also, engaging in actions is a natural tendency and action is multiply caused, but it does not imply that human beings have no responsibility. They have their share of responsibility as agent and as experiencer (bhoktā) of the outcomes. This is important because our existence is interdependent. The Indian thinkers have been very keenly concerned with it. To illustrate this point one may look at some of the core values which have been often treated as key motivators in everyday life. This list can be very long but for want of space we may limit ourselves to one, satya or truth.

Satya or Truth

Satya or truth refers to existence itself and is conceptually very inclusive. It is interesting, and instructive too, that etymologically to exist is sat, to exist is asti, existence is astitva and the property that maintains existence is satya. One of the important analyses of satya is available in the great epic Mahābhārata. Truth is the highest value and has been considered as equal to dharma. Nothing is higher than truth. Therefore the injunction: one must speak the truth and one should not speak untruth. Everything that exists is rooted only in truth. Truth is known by its thirteen attributes, which include samatā, an attitude of equality; dama, self control; amātsarya, absence of envy; kṣamā, reconciliation, forgiveness; hrī, modesty; titikṣā, endurance; anasūyā, not to find fault with others; tyāga, renunciation; dhyāna, concentration of the mind; āryatā, nobility of conduct; dhṛti, forbearance; and ahiṁsā, non violence (Mahābhārata 12, 156: 10–22). The detailed characterization of these attributes given in the Mahābhārata is as follows:

• Truth is that which is undifferentiated, abiding, and without any defect: it is obtained through the discipline of not doing anything against any dharma.
• Equality lies in displaying the same attitude towards friends and foes: it is achieved by destroying the feelings of attachment, antipathy, desire and anger.
• Self-control consists in not desiring things that belong to others; in the seriousness and steadfastness of purpose; in the absence of deviousness; and in the conquest of anger: it is obtained by knowledge.
• Absence of envy consists in mental restraint while giving gifts, and in doing one's appointed duty: it is achieved through truthfulness.
• Forgiveness consists in being able to bear the behaviour that is intolerable and the speech that is unpleasant: it is achieved through truthfulness.
• Modesty consists in securing what is good for others, without regret and always with peace within: it is achieved by following dharma.
• Endurance is the capacity to bear difficulties in pursuing dharma and one's desired object.
• Not to find fault with others consists in seriousness: it is achieved by generosity.
• Renunciation consists in giving up partiality to things as well as sense-gratification: it is achieved by rising above attraction and repulsion.
• Concentration of the mind is achieved through silence.
• Nobility of conduct consists in working constantly for the good of others: it is achieved through giving up attachment to things for oneself.
• Forbearance consists in rising above happiness and suffering: it is achieved through constant forgiveness, by sticking to truth, and by conquering fear and anger.
• Non-violence consists in malice towards none, in act or in thought or in speech, and in kindness and generosity to others.

Truth also implies existence, and something which goes against life becomes untruth. So truth should be in consonance with deśa (place) and kāla (time). As stated in the Mahābhārata ‘to save others from being killed is a most superior dharma; if by speaking a lie, a life is protected, then speak the lie’.

Conclusion

In conclusion it may be stated that the Indian perspective on motivation goes beyond the prevailing models of egoistic and reductionist psychology. Informed by an extended notion of self with physical, social and spiritual facets, it offers a view which explains functioning in an interdependent world. It bridges the divide between the self and the non-self, and aspires to function in a holistic and organic paradigm. It has potential to overcome the limits of the individualistic formulation of motivation of control, and favours orchestration of the personal and non-personal.

References

Agarwal, R., & Misra, G. (1986). A factor analytic study of achievement goals and means: An Indian view. International Journal of Psychology, 21, 717–731.

Chakraborty, S. K. (1994). Management by values: Towards cultural congruence. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Collins, A. (1991). From Brahma to a blade of grass: Towards an Indian self-psychology. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 19, 143–189.

Dalal, A. K., Singh, A. K., & Misra, G. (1988). Reconceptualization of achievement behaviour: A cognitive approach. In A.K. Dalal (Ed.), Attribution theory and research (pp. 82–97). New Delhi: Wiley Eastern.

D'Andrade, R. G., & Strauss, C. (1992). Human motives and cultural models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Daniel, E. V. (1984). Fluid signs: Being a person in a Tamil way. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientation scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 109–134.

Gergen, K. J., Gulerce, A., Lock, A., & Misra, G. (1996). Psychological science in cultural context. American Psychologist, 51, 496–503.

Heelas, P., & Locke, A. (Eds.) (1981). Indigenous psychologies: The anthropology of self. New York: Academic Press.

Kakar, S. (1978). The inner world: A psychoanalytic study of childhood and society in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Kakar, S. (1997). Culture and psyche. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Kao, H. S. R., & Sinha, D. (Eds.) (1997). Asian perspectives on psychology. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Keyes, T. F., & Daniel, E. V. (Eds.) (1983). Karma: An anthropological inquiry. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kurtz, S. N. (1992). All the mothers are one. New York: Columbia University Press.

Marriott, M. (1989). Constructing an Indian ethnosociology. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 23, 1–40.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.

Marsella, A. J., DeVos, G., & Hsu, F. L. K. (Eds.) (1985). Culture and self-Asian and western perspectives. New York: Tavistock.

Mines, M. (1988). Conceptualizing the person: Hierarchical society and individual autonomy in India. American Anthropologist, 90, 568–578.

Misra, G. (1994). Psychology of control: Cross-cultural considerations. Journal of Indian Psychology, 12, 8–45.

Misra, G., & Gergen, K. J. (1993). On the place of culture in psychological science. International Journal of Psychology, 28, 225–243.

Misra, G., & Giri, R. (1995). Is Indian self predominantly interdependent? Journal of Indian Psychology, 11, 15–19.

Nakamura, H. (1964). Ways of thinking of eastern people of India, China, Tibet and Japan. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.

Pande, N., & Naidu, R. K. (1992). ‘Anasakti’ and health: A study of non-attachment. Psychology and Developing Societies, 4, 89–104.

Roland, A. (1988). In search of self in India and Japan. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Sampson, E. E. (1985). The decentralization of identity: Toward a revised concept of personal and social order. American Psychologist, 40, 1203–1211.

Sampson, E. E. (1989). The deconstruction of self. In J. Shotter & K.J. Gergen (Eds.), Texts of identity (pp. 1–19). London: Sage Publications.

Shweder, R. A., & Bourne, E. J. (1984). Does the concept of the person vary crossculturally? In R.A. Shweder & R.A. Levine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self and emotion (pp. 158–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Singhal, R., & Misra, G. (1994). Achievement goals: A situational-contextual analysis. International Journal of Inter-Cultural Relations, 18, 239–253.

Sinha. D., & Naidu, R. K. (1994). Multilayered hierarchical structure of self and not self: The Indian perspectives. In A.M. Bouvy, F.J.R. van de Vijver, P. Bosk, & P. Schmitz (Eds.), Journey into cross-cultural psychology (pp. 41–49). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Sinha, D., & Tripathi, R. C. (1991). Individualism in a collective culture: A case of coexistence of opposites. In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibase, S. Chot, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications (pp. 123–136). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Sinha, J. B. P. (1995). The cultural context of leadership and power. New Delhi: Sage.

Tripathi, R. C. (1988). Aligning development to values in India. In D. Sinha & H.S.R Kao (Eds.), Social values and development: Asian perspectives (pp. 314–322). New Delhi: Sage.

Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation. Newbury Park, Cal.: Sage.

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333.