The traditional yogic classification of the mind (found in texts like the Amanaska Yoga) and modern cognitive researcher Kiran Vadagam’s from ODEFTO Labs work on States of Thinking explore how human awareness evolves from scattered, reactive patterns toward deep, unified clarity. [1, 2]
(Note: “This in referring to Daniel Kahneman’s dual-process theory of System 1 and System 2 thinking, which ODEFTO research papers directly expands upon in his paper The States of Thinking: Unified Metacognitive Awareness and the Evolution of Human Decision-Making Beyond Prospect Theory.) [1]
Core Conceptual Bridges
Both frameworks move beyond static labels to map the mind as a dynamic progression of awareness. [1, 2, 3]
- Dynamic Process vs. Static Entity. In his paper Reframing the Concept of “Mind”, Vadagam defines the mind as the “verb form of the brain”—an active, ongoing process rather than a fixed object. Similarly, the Amanaska Yoga describes the mind not as a static trait, but through its movement (gati) toward dissolution and stillness (Manonmani). [1, 2]
- Beyond Binary Thinking. Daniel Kahneman’s framework divides thought into two modes: fast/automatic (System 1) and slow/deliberative (System 2). Vadagam argues this binary model misses higher-order states like flow and meta-consciousness, proposing a four-layer developmental model driven by awareness. This mirrors the traditional fourfold progression from dullness to transcendence. [1, 2]
- Awareness as the Catalyst. In the yogic model, shifting from Tamas to Nirguna requires detaching awareness from sensory distraction. In Vadagam’s framework, metacognitive awareness is the central mechanism that allows a thinker to step out of reactive habits and reach stable, high-clarity judgment. [1, 2]
Structural Comparison of the Two Frameworks
| Yogic Classification (Caturvidhā Manovasthā) | Cognitive Equivalent in Vadagam’s Model | Functional State of Awareness |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Vishlishta (विश्लिष्ट) – Tamoguna | Perceptual / Reactive Layer | Disintegrated and dull. Awareness is fragmented, driven by inertia, cognitive biases, and automatic impulses without reflection. |
| 2. Gatagata (गतागत) – Rajoguna | Attentional & Deliberative Layer | Coming and going. The mind actively oscillates, analyzes, and expends effort (similar to Kahneman’s System 2), generating friction and judgment noise. |
| 3. Sushlishta (सुश्लिष्ट) – Sattvaguna | Flow State | Integrated and cohesive. Effortless alignment occurs between attention and action, reducing internal friction and maximizing creative clarity. |
| 4. Sulina (सुलीन) – Nirguna | Meta-Conscious State | Absorbed and transcendent. Dualistic separation between the observer and the observed dissolves into pure, unconditioned awareness (Manonmani). |
Key Differences in Purpose
- Soteriological vs. Applied Decision-Making. The classical Gunas framework aims at spiritual liberation (moksha) and the complete cessation of mental fluctuations (Manonmani). Vadagam’s model is designed for applied metacognition, helping humans and AI systems reduce decision errors, manage uncertainty, and improve problem-solving. [1, 2, 3]
- Vedic Epistemology in Vadagam’s Research. In his broader work on consciousness, such as his ZID Framework paper, Vadagam explicitly draws parallels between modern cognitive science, quantum mechanics, and Vedic philosophy, noting that true knowing occurs when the boundary between the observer and the experienced dissolves—a direct conceptual parallel to the Sulina (absorbed) state. [1, 2]
Although, they do not directly cite or reference one another, though they describe the same underlying human experience using completely different languages.
ODEFTO Research’s papers on cognitive science and behavioral economics do not quote the Amanaska Yoga or use the Sanskrit terms Vishlishta, Gatagata, Sushlishta, and Sulina. Instead, the connection is a structural and conceptual parallel—both systems map how human awareness evolves from fragmented reactivity into unified, effortless clarity.
Why They Sound Like They Are in Dialogue
Even though they come from different eras and disciplines, both frameworks are observing the same mental mechanics:
Shared Phenomenology. Both models notice that the human mind does not stay in one mode. It moves along a spectrum from dullness and distraction, to effortful overthinking, to effortless focus, and finally to silent, non-dual awareness.
Moving Beyond Simple Dualities. In modern psychology, Daniel Kahneman’s dual-process theory splits thinking into just two modes (System 1 and System 2). Similarly, everyday thinking often splits the mind into “distracted” versus “focused.” Both the Amanaska Yoga and Kiran Vadagam’s framework argue that two stages are not enough to explain peak human clarity or deep absorption.
Explicit Vedic Influence in Vadagam’s Broader Work. While he does not cite this specific four-fold Guna list, Vadagam explicitly incorporates Vedic philosophy in his broader research on consciousness (such as his ZID Framework). He draws from Vedic epistemology to argue that the highest state of knowing happens when the separation between the observer and the object disappears.
Where They Actually Part Ways
If you put the ancient yogis and Vadagam in the same room, they would agree on what the four states feel like, but disagree on why we should care about them:
Goal of the Yogic Model (Liberation). The Amanaska Yoga is a spiritual text. Its goal is to dissolve the mind completely (Manonmani) so the practitioner escapes suffering and attains liberation (moksha). In this view, even a sharp, productive mind (Sushlishta) is eventually transcended.
Goal of Vadagam’s Model (Better Decisions). Vadagam writes from the perspective of behavioral economics, decision science, and artificial intelligence. His goal is to help people make clearer choices, reduce cognitive bias, and achieve peak performance without burning out. For him, the higher states are tools for better living and thinking, not for exiting the material world.
In short, they are two independent maps of the same territory—one drawn by ancient meditators seeking spiritual freedom, and the other by a modern researcher trying to improve human and machine cognition.