Lived trajectories of wellbeing in a Triguna-based Sattvik practice ecology

Subjective wellbeing research has been criticized for theoretical fragmentation, weak causal modeling, and limited cultural grounding, prompting calls for culturally grounded process models of flourishing. This study examines how far the constructs of the Integrated Triguna Framework (ITF), a process model of wellbeing derived from Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS), are recognizable in, qualified by, or exceeded by the retrospective accounts of practitioners engaged with a Sattvik practice ecology in a single bhakti (devotional) community. Fourteen adults (nine male, five female; aged 18–60) were interviewed with a theory-anchored semi-structured guide. Thirteen narrated their own trajectories of practice, which ranged from under 2 years to more than two decades; one long-term practitioner who is also a mental-health professional served as a key informant. Transcripts were analyzed with Template Analysis in a hybrid deductive–inductive stance, supported by an audit trail, explicit disconfirmation criteria, and a negative-case search. Seven themes describe a reported movement from Rajas – Tamas dysregulation, through externally scaffolded entry and embodied discipline, to imperfect, effortful stabilization. Most core ITF constructs were recognizable in the accounts, and Agent– Kṣetra co-evolution was the most extensively described. Some constructs needed refinement. Reported persistence differed according to whether supports were maintained or disrupted, so each persistence-related construct was divided into two variants. Entry into practice followed three routes: through family, through the devotional community, and through media. One participant's entry through social-media content suggested a provisional Digital Kṣetra construct. Negative cases indicate that, in this community, devotional practice was sometimes insufficient on its own and was experienced as helpful only alongside clinical and psychosocial care. The findings show that the ITF's constructs are recognizable and refinable in lived accounts from one community; they do not validate the framework or establish causal mechanisms, which require longitudinal, comparative, and quantitative work.