The term ‘Sattvic’ appears in the depth-psychology corpus primarily as a normative and evaluative category drawn from the Sāṃkhya-Yoga doctrine of the three guṇas — sattva, rajas, and tamas — and is applied with remarkable breadth across psychological, ethical, social, and scientific domains. Easwaran’s commentary on the Bhagavad Gītā constitutes the most sustained engagement, treating the sattvic mode not as mere theological abstraction but as a functional psychological quality — characterised by detachment, clarity, selfless action, and equipoise — that can be cultivated through meditation and applied to medicine, economics, science, diet, intellect, and will. Bryant’s treatment of the Yoga Sūtras approaches sattva from a more technical, scholastic angle, situating the sāttvic mind as a prerequisite condition for ātman-realisation: sense-control subjugates rajas and tamas, thereby amplifying sattva, which in turn makes the mind a fit instrument for perception of the innermost self. Zimmer supplies the cosmological and mythological register, noting that spiritual conceptions of divinity arise where sattva-guṇa predominates, contrasting with the wrathful (rajasic) and malevolent (tamasic) divine personifications. A productive tension runs through these positions: Easwaran democratises the concept, applying it to professional conduct, political economy, and sensory experience, while Bryant and Zimmer maintain the classical metaphysical scaffolding. Together they frame sattva not merely as one quality among three, but as the threshold quality orienting consciousness toward liberation.