creativity and intelligence

The Relationship Between Creativity and Intelligence: A CombinedYogic-Scientific Approach

Roy HoranThe Hong Kong Polytechnic University

ABSTRACT: Three ancient yogic philosophies,describing the evolution of cognitive–affectivephenomena toward the nondual state of yoga, orunion, (e.g., dissolution of the subject–object dichot-omy) couple with empirical studies to redefine, andexpand, existing constructs for, and relationshipbetween, creativity and intelligence. The OceanModel addresses the integration of novelty, appro-priateness, and authenticity in creative endeavorwith intelligence: the intrinsic factors being recog-nition, informational limitation, choice, and selectiveadaptation to the environment. Creativity and intel-ligence are described in three increasingly subtlestates, crystallized, fluid, and vacuous, which areinfluenced by the psychological interplay of dispas-sion (vairagya) and discrimination (viveka) at vari-egated levels. It is argued that the key differencebetween intelligence and creativity lies in the natureof intention: whether limited or, transcendent. A9-module matrix is developed to map variations inthe expanded creativity–intelligence relationship.Suggestions for empirically testing the Ocean Modelare further supported by studies of empathy and wis-dom. A unique method to test dispassion, involvingambivalent character traits and their relationshipto psychological integration, is presented.

Creative genius is a phenomenon that hasfascinated great thinkers throughout history. InWestern civilization, from Aristotle’s time, creativegenius has been recognized for its social value inproviding useful ideas and products. It has alsobeen associated with madness and intense, dis-ordered, and compulsive inspiration. In the East,

Hindus (Muller-Ortega, 1990), Buddhists (Cheng,2001) and Taoists (Lau, 1982) attributed creativegenius to man’s discovery of his deep innerrelationship with nature and attunement to naturalprocesses. Concepts like harmony, balance, andinner and outer cycles guided a creative life. Inthese traditions, creativity is a spontaneous mani-festation of man’s deeper awareness of his indivisi-bility from nature. This perspective, however, hasreceived little attention from the scientific com-munity. Empirical investigation into the natureof creativity was first stimulated by Darwin’s(1859) principal of natural selection and Galton’schoice of eminence-achieving families as examplesof hereditary capability (Albert & Runco, 1999).The implementation of the scientific method increativity research received impetus from Guilford(1967) who, in his 1950 Presidential Address to theAmerican Psychological Association, pointed outthat creativity was an important, yet neglected,area of study. Since then, scientists have employedpsychometric, experimental, historiometric, bio-metric, and biographical approaches to under-standing creativity (see Sternberg & O’Hara,1999 for a review of these methodologies). As aresult, psycho-physiological measurement, casestudies, and analysis of historical data on cre-atively gifted individuals provided scientificresearch with much valuable insight into the nat-ure of creativity and giftedness.

Correspondence should be sent to Roy Horan, Multimedia

Innovation Centre, School of Design, The Hong Kong Poly-

technic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong. E-mail:

[email protected]

Creativity Research Journal2007, Vol. 19, Nos. 2–3, 179–202

Copyright # 2007 byLawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Creativity Research Journal 179

The creative phenomenon, however, has provenso complex that the nature of creative geniusremains illusive and its relationship to intelligenceunclear (Sternberg & O’Hara, 1999). This con-clusion is understandable because empirical stu-dies are based on the concept of measurementwhich, by its very nature, binds to a dualisticontology dividing subject from object, promotescomplexity (depending on the number of perceivedvariables) and tends to limit a deeper explorationand more intuitive understanding of relationships.On the other hand, scientific measurement ben-eficially verifies human experience within definedparameters. This discussion approaches the prob-lem of creativity, and its relationship to intelli-gence, through insights gained from the nondualIndian yogic philosophies of Advaita Vedanta(8th to 9th centuries AD), Shakta Vedanta andKashmir Shaivism (8th to 11th centuries AD)and their practices. It redefines creativity, intelli-gence, and their relationship in a form that fostersthe evolution of an integrated and transcendentpsychology manifesting, ultimately, in a sustain-able nondual experience. Alhough the two con-structs become fully integrated in this experience,their integration develops gradually within indivi-duals and across populations. The discussion alsoprovides both a philosophical and theoreticalframework for better understanding, and further-ing, creativity research. Before addressing the nat-ure of creativity per se, it is useful to explore thesubject–object dichotomy.

The Subject–Object Dichotomy

All civilizations place great emphasis on theimportance of knowledge, a word that originatesin Middle English out of ‘‘action, process’’ coupledwith ‘‘lock’’ (as in wedlock). This concept isreflected in the Sanskrit word yoga, the processof yoking (i.e., unifying) the individual withsupreme knowledge. (All foreign terminology isin Sanskrit, unless indicated otherwise.) Yogicpsychology—herein defined as the study of themind’s experience of, and evolution toward, unitivestates—includes practical explorations, usuallytransmitted from master to apprentice, into thenature of knowledge (j~nnana yoga), affective states

(bhakti yoga), dissolution of the conditionedmind (laya yoga) and selfless action (karma yoga;Feuerstein, 1989; also see Vivekananda, 1986).Herein, J~nnana yoga, the yoga of knowledge, isgiven priority. It is the process whereby intelligencemoves from the realm of differentiated, andthereby limited, knowledge to a direct experience ofundifferentiated, unlimited knowledge. Heraclitus(536–470 BC) described the highest knowledge aslogos, the principle of rationality, pattern andidentity that underlies the cosmic flux. In KashmirShaivism, the deep inner informational structure ofthe universe, including man’s knowledge, arisesfrom Shakti, a word meaning creative power. Thistradition defines supreme knowledge as the mysti-cal union of Shakti and its counterpart, Shiva, thetranscendent reality or consciousness upon whichall things rest. The integration of creativity andintelligence therefore lies in the union of Shaktiand Shiva (Woodroffe, 1993, 1994). Man’s higherintellect, or buddhi, facilitates this process by trans-cending the subject–object dichotomy. The artisticintellect, for example, strives to understand theobject of focus by subjectively merging with it. T.S. Eliot (1971) described, in Dry Salvages, ‘‘musicheard so deeply that it is not heard at all, butyou are the music’’ (p. 37). The yogic practitioner’s‘object,’ however, is the absolute. The resultingexperience is ‘There is neither seer not seeing norseen. There is but one Reality—changeless, formlessand absolute. How can it be divided?’’ (Shankara,1978, p. 100). The realization of this mystical unionis a subtle introspective process designed to tran-scend perceptual limitations. It involves long prac-tice of techniques like meditation, contemplation,chanting mantras which produce enhanced sensi-tivity and greater integration of the yogi’s psycho-physiology (Rama, Ballentine, & Ajaya, 1976).

Scientific inquiry, although often intuitive,relies on objectivity to sustain the repeatable, con-sensual aspects of knowledge and its potentialbenefit to society. In objectivity, the subject–object dichotomy differentiates knowledge, andtherefore information, measurably. The dictionary(Merriam-Webster, 2005) variously defined infor-mation as

knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or

instruction; intelligence, news; facts, data; the attribute

R. Horan

180 Creativity Research Journal

inherent in and communicated by one of two or more

alternative sequences or arrangements of some-

thing . . . that produce specific effects; a signal or charac-

ter . . . representing data; something . . . which justifies

change in a construct (as a plan or theory) that repre-

sents physical or mental experience or another construct;

a quantitative measure of the content of information,

specifically, a numerical quantity that measures the

uncertainty in the outcome of an experiment to be per-

formed. (p. 641)

The information paradigm, as a manifestationof subject–object dichotomy, provides a basisfor reliable measurement and is crucial for the sur-vival of the scientific method. It also presents cer-tain challenges in understanding the ambiguousrelationship between mind (perception=subject)and matter (physical perceptual processing=object)referred to as the cognitive binding problem. Thebrain divides perceptual processing into modality(visual, audio) and submodality (color, pitch),yet our perceptions form a unified experience.Somehow various sensory inputs are convertedinto our seamless experience of the external world(Edelman & Tonini, 2000). For some scientists,object defines subject; that is, mind is conceivedsolely as a series of action potentials in the brain(Dennett, 1991). A contrary perspective suggestsquantum processing in the brain (Hameroff &Penrose, 1996). Here the mind influences theunusual world of subatomic phenomena withinneurons where elementary particles decohere (i.e.,manifest) out of superposed states, exhibit bothwave and particle properties, are smeared out inposition and momentum (i.e., existing as math-ematical probabilities only when measured), anddemonstrate nonlocal effects (i.e., entanglement;Penrose, Shimony, Cartwright, & Hawking,1999) or what Einstein called ‘‘spooky action ata distance.’’ At the quantum level, nature seemssimultaneously divided and unified. Stapp (2004),using quantum theory as a base, provided thought(mind) with a physical mechanism (discussedlater), through the power of choice, to directlyinfluence the associated motion of billions ofparticles in the brain in order to create infor-mation. Shakta Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism(Woodroffe, 1993, 1994) support this claim bypositioning will’s (iccha shakti) power to createand transcend information before knowledge

(j~nnana shakti) in the evolution of consciousness.This echoes strongly of the creative process. Scien-tifically, mind–matter binding problems tax thedeeper understanding of information by blurringthe strict assumption of a subject–object dichot-omy. Empirical studies, based on this dichotomy,may belie any complete understanding of creativ-ity, intelligence, and their relationship withoutconsidering the claim of mystical traditions thatmind is founded in a deeper unity of consciousness(for discussions on mysticism, see Underhill,1990). Kant (1992) stated that

there can be in us no modes of knowledge, no connec-

tion or unity of consciousness of one mode of conscious-

ness with another, without that unity of consciousness

which precedes all data of intuitions and by relation to

which representation of objects is alone possible. This

pure original unchangeable consciousness I shall name

transcendental apperception. (p. 136)

In order to clarify the relationship betweencreativity and intelligence, basic assumptions areaddressed, beginning with definitions of creativityand intelligence.

Defining Creativity and Intelligence

Creativity, within the research community, isvariously defined as the capacity to generate novel,socially valued products or ideas (Mumford,Reiter-Palmon, & Redmond, 1994). Sternbergand Lubart (1999, citing Lubart, 1994; Ochse,1990; Sternberg, 1988; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991,1995, 1996) declared that creativity is the abilityto produce work that is both novel (i.e., original,unexpected) and appropriate (i.e., useful, adaptiveconcerning task constraints). This has alsobeen referred to as outer creativity (Goswami &Goswami, 1999). Averill, Chon, and Hahn(2001) argued that a third criterion for creativity,authenticity (although supported by only a fewWestern commentators), appears in the East.Authenticity can be defined as being ‘‘reflectiveof the self.’’ It describes what has also been calledinner creativity or a subjective transformation ofthe self (Goswami & Goswami, 1999). Arnheim(1966) reinforces this concept by allying creativitywith ‘‘the pregnant sight of reality’’ (p. 299) in

Relationship Between Creativity and Intelligence


which the creative subjectively surrenders to theobject, thereby transforming his or her perceptionsof it consequently engendering a deeper relation-ship with it.

Shakta Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism systemsdeclare that deep within the individual psychethere exists an existential stress or pulsation(spanda) that is the mechanism of Shakti’s creativepower (Dyczkowski, 1989; Singh, 1991). This pul-sation motivates the individual to seek freedomand experience its concomitant emotion, bliss(ananda). In the average person, the search mani-fests as a desire for satisfaction or pleasure. Free-dom, in the yogic sense, is the willful dissolutionof all perceptual limitations, which grants theability to respond to objects (including ones’ per-ceived psychophysiological self) as though therewere no subject–object dichotomy. With freedom,responses become spontaneous, creative, adaptive,and delightful. The poet, D. H. Lawrence (cited inGhiselin, 1952), stated

Art is a form of religion, minus the Ten Commandment

business, which is sociological. Art is a form of

supremely delicate awareness and atonement—meaning

at oneness, the state of being at one with the object.

But is the great atonement in delight?—for I can never

look on art save as a form of delight. (p. 71)

Through freedom, the subject develops adelightful empathy with the object. Empathy andadaptability are considered important qualities increatives (Root-Bernstein, 1999). As freedomincreases, the empathy-induced dissolution of alimited sense of self and the spontaneity it elicitscan be disconcerting, even fearful, for an individ-ual whose intent is to sustain a firm sense of ident-ity. Freedom requires great courage. It lies at theroot of man’s greatest passions and his greatestfears. Highly creative individuals are known fortheir courage (May, 1975) to withstand external(e.g., being threatened by the status quo) and inter-nal pressures (e.g., ambiguity of being wrong inone’s convictions). Kashmir Shaivism does notperceive freedom, and the courage it entails, as apassive phenomenon. ‘‘Liberation is no longerfreedom from but freedom to, spontaneous out-flow of creative activity, play’’ (Fernandez, 2000,p. 132). Creative action that is truly free transcends

limitations of the environment in a novel, playful,and appropriate manner. This adaptive form ofplayfulness is called in Kashmir Shaivism, the playof consciousness (chidvilas; Muktananda, 1971). Itmanifests subjects and objects; yet, paradoxically,transcends them. Although it takes courage todissolve the limited self; yoga psychology declaresthat any cognitive–affective process, whichmomentarily elicits a nondichotomous experienceof self and object, increases what Csikszentmihalyi(1996) calls an autotelic motivation to create, dueto a positive feedback loop that elicits joy and sti-mulates greater freedom of expression. Behind themotivation to create is the will to transcend. Thedegree to which the creativity potential manifestsdepends on the capacity to willfully dissolve limita-tions. Koestler (1964) echoed this by saying ‘‘thecreative act . . . is an act of liberation—the defeatof habit by originality’’ (p. 96).

The relationship between outer creativity as acombination of novelty and appropriateness; innercreativity, or authenticity, as subjective transform-ation of the self; and the creative freedom of theunitary state of consciousness described in yogictexts, has not been adequately explored. For thepurposes of this discussion, an expanded definitionof creativity is assumed: the manifestation ofan intention to transcend the limitations ofinformation. This definition applies to the mani-festation of novel ideas, performances, and pro-ducts, as well as well-intended attempts thatdon’t result in novelty (a much more compassion-ate definition for children, inventors, students andwould-be flower arrangers). It covers subjectivepsychophysiological transformations leading togreater integration, empathy, wisdom, and appro-priate adaptation of subject to object whether thatobject be a concept, person, particular domain orfield, or way of life. Furthermore, it defines a pro-cess continuum founded in the power of choiceand allowing the self to be reflected, or expressed,more deeply and creatively, as limitations are over-come, ultimately manifesting in yoga: the unitarystate of consciousness.

It is also assumed that creativity manifests inthree increasingly subtle states: crystallized, fluid,and vacuous. (These states are reminiscent of thethree states of water, excepting vacuity. The theoryis called the Ocean Model because the ocean

R. Horan


surface manifests many wave forms [crystal state],both wave and current motion are fluid, dynamicalin nature, while motion in the deepest regions isvast, subtle, silent [vacuous state]. The oceandepths support and give rise to all that occursabove. Water’s more energetic, gaseous state, evi-dent at the ocean surface, is also spatially vacuous;so in this model vacuity lies both above and below.The ocean is also the primal source of life on thisplanet and water is a major constituent of bothbody and brain.) The terms crystallized and fluidare borrowed from Cattell (1987), who definedcrystallized intelligence as consisting primarily ofspecific, acquired knowledge and fluid intelligenceas a simple, innate, general ability, which staysfairly constant throughout life. This discussion’suse of these terms differs from Cattell in suggestingthat fluidity (in both creativity and intelligence)can be improved through vacuity. The three-statemodel is designed to integrate both yogic andscientific perspectives on creativity and intelli-gence. Crystallized creativity is embodied in anovel artifact (i.e., idea, product, performance)that may, or may not, receive domain recognition.The word crystallized implies structure and, in ref-erence to creativity, uniqueness. Crystallized crea-tivity, however, is restricted by its form (e.g., awritten idea, poem, painting, an invention, or per-formance). Creatives tend to balk at these restric-tions by commenting that their creations arenever complete (Osho, 1999).

Crystallized creativity arises from fluid creativ-ity, which implies adaptability and the ability tomove away from, or around, constraints like astream of water flows around rocks. Fluid creativ-ity embodies curiosity and imagination: curiosityas the intention to explore the unknown andimagination as an expression of new ways to com-bine information. Fluid creativity is tested to someextent in the flexibility index of divergent thinkinginstruments like Torrance’s (1974) Tests of Cre-ative Thinking, which measure flexibility in thenumber of ideational perspectives. Cattell (1971)also included flexibility (vs. firmness) in his listof primary attributes for intelligence. He felt, how-ever, that creativity was a function of general intel-ligence, primarily fluid intelligence construed asreasoning ability plus personality related factors(Sternberg & O’Hara, 1999). Furthermore, fluid

creativity appears in Wallas’s (1926) four-stagetheory (preparation, incubation, illumination,and verification), an iterative process involvingcuriosity, exploration, insight, and appropriate-ness. It is assumed that Wallas’s creative processembodies the intention to transcend the limitationsof a problem resulting, adaptively, in the form ofcrystallized output. Fluid creativity’s flexibilityand capacity for novel forms of adaptation canbe targeted to particular domains, fields, situa-tions, persons, or state of mind.

Fluid creativity has its source in vacuous crea-tivity. Vacuous creativity is the intentional empty-ing of all limiting thought, memory, and affectiveconstructs so that the self is reflected in its mostpristine state. This is similar to Deikman’s (1969)concept of deautomatization as the undoing ofmeans and goal structures directed to the environ-ment, reinvesting actions and percepts with atten-tion and shifting to a structure lower in thehierarchy, which can lead to mystic experience.The manifestation in vacuous creativity is theintention to transcend. The word vacuous heredoes not denote emptiness in the usual sense of anull set lacking substance, meaning, or value. Auseful analogy is the quantum vacuum, whichappears devoid of content, yet denotes a highdegree of integration, discontinuity, and nonlocal-ity as quantum phenomena unexpectedly appearfrom, and disappear into, it. The process by whichthis happens is not fully understood. The insightsarising out of vacuous creativity resemble discon-tinuous quantum leaps out of the vacuum state(Goswami & Goswami, 1999). Zen artist Loori(2005) conceived insight as resulting from a deeperresonance between subject and object. He said‘‘the process for allowing inspiration to clarifyitself and develop into creativity is aided by culti-vating a quiet space within oneself’’ (p. 86). Hedeclared that this quiet space lies beyond thoughtconstructs and gives rise to greater resonancebetween subject and object, like two tuning forksvibrating at the same frequency.

The state of flow is associated with creativity(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, 1988; Dietrich, 2004)and shares aspects of both fluid and vacuousstates. Flow is a highly directed, undistracted,dynamic process in which action and awarenessmerge with the environment providing immediate



feedback. It is fluid in nature. It is also vacuous inthe disappearance of both self-awareness and asense of time. The state of flow, taken to theextreme, may result in what yogis call a one-pointed mind (ekagrata). Ekagrata is a highlyfocused state, manifesting as a profound intentionto transcend all limitation, serving as the thresh-hold to the mystical experience of absolute unitarybeing (AUB). d’Aquili and Newberg (1999)described AUB as ‘‘the subject loses all awarenessof discreet limited being and of the passage oftime, and even experiences an obliteration of theself-other dichotomy’’ (p. 110). The experienceoften involves a cessation of normal intellectualoperations or their substitution by an elevated,qualitatively different mode of intellect (e.g.,intuition), a coincidence of opposites (e.g., para-dox), ineffability, and a strong affective tone. Inshort, AUB is truly an out-of-the-box experience.This aspect of the creativity spectrum is not wellresearched, perhaps because individuals who aredrawn to vacuous creativity may be more attractedto transcendence and self-actualization, and there-fore are less motivated to crystallize their experi-ence (i.e., produce novel artifacts), therebydisallowing measurement. AUB, nonetheless, is ahighly proactive state, which may seem counterin-tuitive. Muktananda (1997) described the creativeconsciousness of this state: ‘‘to create forms or tohave created forms, to be created or to continueto be created—for Him these are all natural andspontaneous activities, not artificial. He becomesnothing even while creating. It is His nature’’(p. 5). There are many mystics that producecreative works, often quite spontaneously, inorder to serve others. Examples are the songs andverse of Tukaram Maharaj (17th century AD),Jalaluddin Rumi (1207–1273), William Blake(1757–1827), Dante Alighieri (1265–1321), St. Johnof the Cross (1542–1591), Mirabai (AD 1504–1550), and Kabir (15th century AD).

Although there are many definitions of intelli-gence (Intelligence and Its Measurement, 1921),they share commonalities with Sternberg andO’Hara’s (1999, see also Sternberg, 1985b) defi-nition: ‘‘the ability to purposively adapt to, shapeand select environments’’ (p. 251). This definitionapplies to creativity in its capacity to generatenovel, socially valued products or ideas. Creativity

is also a purposeful process. Its output is adaptiveand adds value to the individual and society. Itinvolves the selection of appropriate solutions froma larger context while environments are shapedaccording to creative vision and imagination.Other definitions of intelligence also describe qua-lities that could also be attributed to creativity(for an overview discussion, see Sternberg &O’Hara, 1999). Even yoga philosophies blur theboundaries between creativity and intelligence bystating that they are unified in AUB (often calledAtman, or the Self). The yoga of knowledge, j~nnanayoga, however, describes the yogi merged in Atmanas having exceptional discrimination, described byVedantists as the ability to distinguish the Realfrom the Unreal (nityanityaviveka; Vivekananda,1986), or supreme wisdom. This form of intelli-gence is not adequately covered by existing defini-tions of intelligence.

In order to better explore the relationshipbetween creativity and intelligence, a new defi-nition of intelligence is assumed that expands theconcepts of adapting to, shaping, and selectingenvironments. Intelligence is defined as thecapacity to recognize the limitations of infor-mation defining the environment and select strate-gies to optimize adaption toward the environment.Inability to recognize the limitations of infor-mation constrains intelligence to selections withinthe recognized informational environment. Thismay differentiate the natural selective processesgoverning most organisms from man. Supportedby reflective recognition (as opposed to instinctualperception), it could be argued that selection stra-tegies are pushed to enhance language and symbol(the source of which is matrka shakti, the creativepower of sound syllables or letters; (Muktananda,1997) as an adaptation to the awareness of some-thing unknown. The unknown stimulates fear(e.g., the survival instinct) and increases the needto communicate with inner and outer environ-ments in order to sustain sense of identity. It mustbe emphasized that recognition of the limitationsof information implies, simultaneously, recog-nition of that which is unlimited. This is veryimportant in the development of higher intelli-gence (see below). It is assumed that the recog-nition of informational limitation is enhancedthrough efficiency and effectiveness of overall

R. Horan


sensory capacity (e.g., sensitivity), attention, pro-cessing of existing informational relationships (suchas figural, symbolic, semantic, and behavioral rela-tions) as well as in the activation of short and long-term memory. The limitations of informationinclude all knowledge, experience, and behavior.

Selection or choice is will acting upon, and beingacted upon by, information. Choice has been indi-cated as a key component of intelligence in varioustheories (Mayer, 1983; Siegler, 1984; Sternberg,1984, 1985a). In the broader definition of intelli-gence, choice is, arguably, determined throughnatural selection (e.g., genetically determined),unconscious psychophysiological processing (e.g.,chemical reactions in the hypothalamus of thebrain) and conscious decision making (i.e.,volition). It is not, however, targeted toward trans-cendence. It operates solely within the informa-tional environment. A strategy is herein definedas any structural, metabolic, cognitive, affective,or behavioral process that serves the function ofan organism to successfully interact with its innerand outer environments. Numerous intelligencestrategies are mentioned in the literature (e.g.,Cattell, 1971; Guildford, 1967); some more obviousones would be analysis, synthesis, deduction,induction, memorization, patterning, and planning(see also Weshler, 1991). An environment embodiesinformation including physical, biological, psycho-logical, social, and cultural relationships, con-ditions, etc. The full scope of an environmentmay, or may not, be recognized. The portion recog-nized by the intelligent individual is understood,however, to be limited. Gardner’s (1983, 1993,1995, 2000) multiple intelligences (i.e., bodily-kinesthetic, spatial, naturalist, intrapersonal, inter-personal, musical, linguistic, logical-mathematical,and existential) are considered herein as adaptivestrategies supported by specific forms of recog-nition. Optimizing adaptation provides sustainabil-ity to existing context and allows the individual toacquire knowledge, solve problems, set goals, makemeaning from and restructure existing environ-ments, seek balance, and self-actualize. Intelli-gence, by itself, chooses to know, select, andadapt, not create.

It is assumed that intelligence, also, manifests inthree basic states: crystallized, fluid, and vacuous.In this definition, crystallized intelligence as

knowledge, or learned information (Catell, 1987),has fluid intelligence as its source. That is, knowl-edge (information) cannot be acquired, or takeform, except through the selective adaptive strate-gies employed to acquire it which, physiologically,is attributed to a neuronal editing system (Edelman& Tonini, 2000), the executive function of whichbeing governed by attention. Whereas fluid creativ-ity moves around, or away, from constraints, fluidintelligence adapts quickly and appropriately as aresult of constraints. Vacuous intelligence lies atthe root of both crystallized and fluid intelligence.It arises from deep recognition of the vastness ofthe unknowable. It perceives the unknowable initself, as well as in all objects, and thereby intuit-ively understands the interrelatedness of all pheno-mena. The Kashmir Shaivite sage, Abhinavagupta(8th to 9th centuries AD), said ‘‘the means to bedepended upon to know the nonduality which isUltimate Reality is nothing but cognizing the non-diversity in the diversity of manifestation’’ (Nisker,2002, p. 152). Physicist Max Planck, mirrored thesage’s words in describing scientists: ‘‘We alwayslook for the basic thing behind the dependentthing, for what is absolute behind what is relative,for reality behind the appearance and for whatabides behind what is transitory’’ (p. 152). Yogiscall this absolute perspective witness conscious-ness. The yogi, through practice, radically changesperspective to that of the absolute, thereby reflect-ing all his or her experience upon the mirror of uni-tary consciousness (Shantananda, 2003). Theanalogy of astronauts’ descriptions, from the per-spective of the vastness of outer space, of the fragilebeauty of our planet gives some sense to what itmeans to change perspective from the limited tothe absolute. The difference is that witnessconsciousness is the absolute, not a separate ident-ity. To fully, and at once, experience the limitationsof knowledge is a major paradigm shift. Choice, ifnot daunted by the experience, transforms into theintention to transcend. It becomes creative. Asvacuous intelligence increases in purity, the individ-ual becomes aware, paradoxically, what the ShivaSutras (8th to 9th centuries AD), a leading textof the Kashmir Shaivism tradition, has said:True Knowledge understands that ‘‘knowledgeis bondage’’ (I.2; Muktananda, 1997, p. 6). Thisawareness eventually liberates the individual from



the bonds of limited knowledge and grants an experi-ence of supreme Knowledge, or AUB. Humilityarises as mundane experiences become pregnantwith the subtle vastness that supports them.Examples of highly intelligent mystics that haveserved through written philosophical works areAdi Shankara (AD 788–820), Jnaneshwar Maharaj(AD 1275–1296), Meister Erkhart (1260–1328),and Abhinavagupta (8th to 9th centuries AD).

Although crystallized, fluid, and vacuousstates of both creativity and intelligence sharemany attributes (e.g., crystallized creativitybecomes knowledge as soon as it is recognized,creativity involves processing information, creativ-ity enhances adaptability, intelligence and creativ-ity merge in the vacuous state), the differences thatarise are significant. Upon deeper inspection, crea-tivity, as an intention to transcend informationallimitation, leads to novel forms of adaptation;whereas intelligence, founded in recognition ofinformational limitation, leads (without creativeintervention) to more conventional forms of adap-tation. These differentiating characteristics are keyimplications in the yoga philosophies underconsideration.

Discrimination and Dispassion

The Vedantic yogic philosophy further clarifiesthe constructs of creativity and intelligence.Vedanta (literally, ‘‘the end of revealed Knowledge[Veda]’’) was conceived by Adi Shankara (AD788–820), one of India’s greatest thinkers andyoga masters. Shankara (Shankaracharya, 1993)declared that two qualities lead to SupremeKnowledge: discrimination (viveka) and dispassion(vairagya). Shankara (1978) described theirrelationship in terms of freedom (i.e., liberation),

Know, O wise one, that a man needs dispassion and dis-

crimination as a bird needs its two wings. Without them,

a man cannot reach the top of the vine from which flows

the nectar of liberation. He can never get to it by any

other means. (p. 95)

These qualities form part of the higher intel-lect (buddhi). The derivation of the word intelli-gence comes from the Latin words intelligentem

(discerning); intelligere, inter (between) plus legere(choose, pick out, read) and intelligentia (under-standing). Understanding comes from the OldEnglish understandan, to comprehend, grasp theidea of and, probably literally, ‘‘stand in themidst of.’’ Taken together, the concept of intelli-gence is a form of discernment whereby a central,presumably objective, position is taken regardinga set of information, allowing for the comprehen-sion of its internal relationships. The intent of theword intelligence resonates with the Vedanticconcept of discrimination (viveka), which extendsthe usual meaning of the word, the ‘‘ability todivide,’’ to sustaining a centrality of positionregarding information, a position of optimaladaptation to the informational set. In yoga, thatoptimal position is the form of recognition calledwitness consciousness.

Vedantists declare that the intellect, and itsdicriminatory power, is purified through the qual-ity of dispassion (vairagya). The word dispassionderives from dis (the opposite of) and the Latinpassionem (suffering, desire). Dispassion meansthe ability to overcome desire, or suffering. Inyoga, desire and suffering are synonymous becausedesire clings to objects (i.e., information) thatcause pleasure or pain, two phenomena that defineeach other. Clinging to objects immerses the sub-ject in the pleasure–pain cycle, thereby limitingfreedom. Desire’s source is an awareness of separ-ation between subject and object. Dispassion isdetachment from limitation, that is, the transcen-dence of the constraints of concepts, affective pat-terns, social conditioning, and so forth. Dispassionembodies the intention to transcend. This type ofchoice-making enhances creativity by looseningthe bonds of limiting thought constructs elicitedin the perception of the object or projected bythe subject onto the object.

The word choice comes from choose, which inOld English means to taste, or try. It refers toengagement of the senses that, by their very nat-ure, separate experience into modalities. At a dee-per level, choice and intention are related. In orderto make a choice, an intention (whether consciousor unconscious) is required. The word intentionderives from the Latin intendere, meaning the actof stretching out. Intention is a forceful extensionof one state toward another. On the other hand,

R. Horan


intention can be viewed as a sustained series ofrapid sequential choices. The word for intentionin Sanskrit is sankalpa, meaning ‘‘to wish, to bedesirous of; purpose or resolve’’ and ‘‘to be broughtabout, to come into existence’’ (Shantananda,1999, p. 4). Sankalpa is both a wish and a creativeforce. Dispassionate intention directs shakti, thecreative power, to detach the mind from its limita-tions. Yogic detachment, however, is not a form ofdepersonalization whereby the individual becomesan observer of his or her mental and physical pro-cesses such that a sense of unreality arises (Sierra& Berrios, 1998). Yogic detachment lends vibrancyand joy, or Shankara’s ‘‘nectar of liberation’’(Shankara, 1978, p. 95), to all experience. Dispas-sion is not to be construed as an aversion to suffer-ing, a fear-based form of psychological clinging.Dispassion provides courage to face the unknown.Bhartrihari (Muktananda, 1998), a 5th century ADyogic philosopher and composer of the VairagyaShataka, stated, ‘‘Everything in this world is fullof fear. It is only vairagya, or dispassion, thatmakes you fearless’’ (p. 138).

Shankara (1978) described discrimination anddispassion, or recognition and the intention totranscend, as ‘‘two wings of a bird.’’ The relation-ship between these wings is indicated in an analogytaken from photography. The focal length of acamera lens provides a field of view. Discrimi-nation involves focusing attention, or recognizingcertain targets within the field of view (e.g., ahouse). Field of view is a limited context. Whenusing a telephoto lens, the field of view is narrow(e.g., the main door). The lens’ narrowed view lim-its the greater field of potential information. Awide-angle lens provides an expanded field of view(e.g., the house with tall mountains behind it). Theless constrained view allows the integration ofmore information. In both telephoto and wide-angle contexts, the photographer understands theinformational limitations provided by theirrespective fields-of-view. Dispassion can be under-stood as the intention, or power, of thephotographer to control the field of view.The photographer can intentionally adjust thefield of view from telephoto to wide angle to fish-eye to (perhaps with future technology) a sphericallens where very subtle (almost extrasensory)discrimination (in an individual restricted by

binocular vision) allows for an optimal positionto assess, at a glance, the wealth of available infor-mation. This sort of viewing experience requiresdispassion that is transcendent in nature (e.g.,overcomes binocular vision) as well as a veryfocused, sensitive form of recognition (subtle dis-crimination).

In Vedanta, the elevated coupling of dispassionand discrimination results in a one-pointed mind(ekagrata). Both dispassion (as creativity) and dis-crimination (as intelligence) require vacuity inorder to experience such a state. Yoga declaresthat a one-pointed mind’’ is a free mind, and a rarephenomenon. Elevated dispassion, by expandingawareness into unknown, often involving ambigu-ous contexts, challenges discrimination to attainone-pointedness. If discrimination reacts by justi-fying the value of it’s limited awareness andchoices, yoga calls this ego. Ego can also appearif discrimination elicits a temporary AUB experi-ence and dispassion downshifts into the desire topossess it—a common stumbling block foradvanced yoga practitioners.

The Relationship Between Creativity

and Intelligence

Determining the relationship between creativityand intelligence based on empirical studies hasproved to be no simple matter (Hattie & Rogers,1986; Runco & Albert, 1986). Sternberg andO’Hara (1999), in a comprehensive study ofrelated research, derived five alternative solutionsto the problem

1) creativity is a subset of intelligence 2) intelligence is a

subset of creativity 3) creativity and intelligence are

overlapping sets 4) creativity and intelligence are essen-

tially the same thing (coincident sets) and 5) creativity

and intelligence bear no relation at all to each other (dis-

joint sets). (p. 251)

They conclude that

‘creativity seems to involve synthetic, analytical and

practical aspects of intelligence; synthetic to come up

with ideas, analytical to evaluate the quality of those

ideas, and practical to formulate a way of effectively



communicating those ideas and of persuading people of

their value. (p. 269)

They caution, however, that psychologists arestill uncertain what the constructs, creativity andintelligence, actually are. It is assumed that thecreativity-intelligence constructs and theirrelationship are better understood from the yogicperspective.

Kashmir Shaivism implies a deeper connectionbetween creativity and intelligence through theunion of Shakti (the creative power) with Shiva(transcendent consciousness), a union that definesultimate Reality. Vedantists declare that discrimi-nation (as the basis for intelligence) and dispassion(as the basis for creativity) unite in the dissolutionof the subject–object dichotomy. This state is alsocalled ‘‘no-pointed attentiveness’’ (ekagrata pari-nama; Iyengar, 1993, p. 182). It is, again, witnessconsciousness. The mind’s one-pointed attention,or focus, is paradoxically described as havingno fixed point of origin, that is, no subject, justraw attention or mindfulness, in which all pre-conceptions about phenomena dissolve (note thepotential expansion of Csikszentmihalyi’s, 1996,concept of flow). In the Ocean Model, sustainedwitness consciousness (or AUB) is the penultimatestate of creative intelligence. There are, however,many shades of creative-intelligent interactionsappearing prior to this. Whether creativity andintelligence are considered overlapping sets, sub-sets of each other, or identical, the two constructsseem to evolve and integrate gradually.

The question arises as to what mechanismallows for such a variety of creative and intelligentexpression within individuals and across popula-tions. According to chapter 14 of the BhagavadGita (Kripananda, 1989), all aspects of humanpsychophysiology, with the exception of AUB,are subject to three gunas (qualities): dull (tamas),active (rajas), and pure (sattva). ‘‘From sattvaknowledge is born, and from rajas desire; negli-gence and delusion arise from tamas, and ignor-ance too’’ (p. 229). The gunas are also calledinertia, activity, and lucidity respectively. Theyare based on observation and used by yoga mas-ters in analyzing their students’ practices. Thethree qualities interact, combine, and evolvetoward purity in a process that is catalyzed by

concealment (vilaya) and revelation (anugraha).Both dispassion and discrimination, for example,exhibit varying levels of concealment-revelationdue to limitations of the senses, physiology, cogni-tive processing, affective states, and so forth. Forexample, a proud (dull) person unknowingly con-ceals his or her humility (pure) until it is revealedthat fear is the basis of pride. The Bhagavad Gitastated that ‘‘those established in sattva go upward;the rajasic stay in the middle; the tamasic,established in the lowest quality, go downward’’(Kripananda, 1989, p. 230). The gunas are alsoscalable. For example, discrimination, as the lightof awareness (recognition), is pure (sattvic);dispassion, as attraction-repulsion (intention), isactive (rajasic); and unrestrained movement orstasis is dull (tamasic). The interpretation of thegunas in relation to psychophysiological phenom-ena is usually relegated to the yoga instructor.The author, being a long-term practitioner, stu-dent, and instructor in yoga psychology, under-takes, in this discussion to interpret the affect ofthe gunas on creativity and intelligence in orderto suggest a theoretical framework for the furtheranalysis of empirical data.

In a well-known study, Wallach and Kogan(1965, 1972) used ten intelligence measures (i.e.,subtests from the Weshler Intelligence Scale forChildren, the School and College Ability Tests,and the Sequential Tests for Educational Pro-gress), and five game-like creativity measures(i.e., instances, alternative uses, similarities, pat-tern, and line meaning) to test the relationshipbetween intelligence and creativity in 151 fifth gra-ders. They divided the results into four groupings:high creativity and high intelligence (HC-HI), highcreativity and low intelligence (HC-LI), low crea-tivity and high intelligence (LC-HI), and low crea-tivity and low intelligence (LC-LI). In order toeffect the divisions, students’ performances weresummed into an intelligence index score and crea-tivity index score that were dichotomized at themedian and then referred to as either high orlow. Both genders were evenly distributed. TheHC-HI group demonstrated the highest levels ofattention span, concentration, interest in academicwork, self-confidence, self-control, and freedom ofexpression and was most sensitive to physiog-nomic stimuli. They seemed most capable of all

R. Horan


the groups in aesthetic sensitivity. They wereoutgoing and popular with their peers and exhib-ited highly disruptive, attention seeking behaviorin the classroom suggesting overenthusiasm. Theyexperienced a level of anxiety that was neither toogreat nor too little and which seemed to energizethem. The LC-HI group were more reserved andaddicted to school achievement and less likely toexpress unconventional ideas. They were the leastlikely to exhibit disruptive behavior and hesitatedto express opinions. In short, they were unwillingto take chances and make errors, in order to avoidcriticism. They were, however, socially adept yetpreferred to remain aloof from interacting withother children. They also expressed the least anxi-ety, a trait that can be attributed to emotional sen-sitivity that is particularly strong in the creativeartist (Feist, 1999). From a yogic perspective, theHC-HI group exhibits greater levels of the purequality in their ability to concentrate (active topure discrimination), freedom of expression andenthusiasm (pure dispassion) leading to effectivesocial skills, sometimes coupled with rebellious-ness (active dispassion). On the other hand, theLC-HI group exhibits some pure discriminationand less dispassion leading to caution and fearof risk taking. This discrimination-dispassioncombination prefers the security of a closed sys-tem; being right takes on greater significance. Astudy by Getzels and Jackson (1962) indicatedthat students with high IQs desired qualities theyfelt lead to success, unlike highly creative studentsthat tended to desire qualities they felt did not leadto success. High IQ students were more desirableto their teachers than students demonstrating highcreativity (HC). The high IQ students, in short,tend to match social expectations (active discrimi-nation). Social adeptness, in the LC-HI group,may be rooted in conformity and dependence (dulldispassion) as opposed to interdependence, acharacter trait that implies a measure of self actua-lization and is, in the yogic context, a sign of puredispassion.

The LC-LI group compensated for poor aca-demic performance with social activity. They wereboth extroverted and more self-confident thanthe HC-LI group, yet they could also engage indefensive adaptations that led to passivity orpsychosomatic conditions. They showed the weakest

tendencies toward aesthetic sensitivity. Theadaptive strategy in this particular group suggeststhe avoidance of challenges (dull discrimina-tion=dispassion) presented by the need for con-centration and sensitivity (pure discrimination)coupled with the strong desire for gratification(dull dispassion) that results in the formation ofamiable dependencies and social activity orpsychosomatic conditions. Students in the HC-LI group displayed highly disruptive, attentionseeking behavior and were least able to concen-trate, most cautious, hesitant and least self-confi-dent. They had a tendency to withdraw socially,perhaps to indulge in fantasy. Their peers wouldshun them more than any other group. Thesestudents were the most disadvantaged in theclassroom. Yet, like the HI-HC group, theydemonstrated the ability to make remote associa-tions but performed better when evaluation pres-sures were absent. Yogic psychology woulddiagnose this group as having a strong drive forfreedom (active-pure dispassion) but lacking thecognitive capacity (dull discrimination) to achieveit. They seem overly concerned about others’ eva-luations of their crystallized creative output, per-haps due to weak evaluative skills. Lack of socialskills, in this case, can be viewed as expressing anadverse reaction toward dependency (active dis-passion desiring to remove constraints) and lowself-confidence. It could appear as a form ofrebelliousness. Fluid creative processes, ill sup-ported by discrimination, might stimulate themto usurp convention. The Getzels and Jackson(1962) study indicated that high-creativity stu-dents exceeded high IQ students in humor, play-fulness, stimulus-free schemes, incongruities,development of unexpected story endings, andviolence. It must be noted, however, that thisstudy did not adequately cover low intelligence(LI) in the creative group: The average IQ scoreswere 127 for the high-creative group and 150 forthe high-intelligence group. This would probablyplace their creativity group closer to HC-HI sec-tor of the Wallach Kogan study (1965, 1972).

It is assumed that individuals with dull discrimi-nation are less adaptable and poor in self-organi-zation due to the inertia of slow, unfocused, orimpaired cognitive processes that lead also to lowself-esteem. Individuals having certain kinds of



brain damage, emotional trauma, delusion, mentallaziness, and below average IQ also may exhibitdull discrimination, as well as demonstrate greaterdependencies upon others and the environment.Dull discrimination can result from poor recog-nition, weakened ability to make choices and inad-equate strategies in optimizing availableinformation for adaptive purposes. The dull discri-minative quality tends to appear in the Wallachand Kogan (1965, 1972) study’s LI groups. Activediscrimination manifests with an increase in revel-ation. Active discrimination can be described asexhibiting increased mental processing speed andcomprehension, as well as recognition of the men-tal, emotional and physical states of others; yet, atthe same time, the individual’s mind may vacillateand have a tendency to wander. Mental activitymay appear alternatively focused and unfocused.This cognitive instability tends to promote con-servative thinking patterns, and strategies thatprovide structure. Active discrimination enhancescrystallized and fluid intelligence but lacks theexpansive stability, or support, of vacuous intelli-gence that leads to increased concentration inresponse to complex problems, ambiguity, andthe unknown. Active discrimination appears mid-way between the LI and high intelligence (HI)groups but can not be clearly differentiated inthe Wallach and Kogan study. Further increasesin revelation result in pure discrimination. Purediscrimination is delineated, in part, by the abilityto sustain concentration for extended periods andabsorb or process information very rapidly. Rec-ognition becomes more subtle and comprehensive.The relatedness of all phenomena is better under-stood. Choices are optimized and highly adaptiveas the sense of self expands. Individuals respondefficiently and effectively to situations that requirethe manipulation of symbols (e.g., language, num-bers, images, etc.). The study’s HI group tendstoward the pure discriminative quality. It isassumed that high IQ scores are insufficient tomeasure intelligence, as defined herein, becauseindividuals with high scores may be very adept atadaptive cognitive strategies, including the absorp-tion and high-speed processing of information,but not necessarily have an equally elevatedcapacity to recognize the limitations of the infor-mational environment. In yoga, individuals with

pure discrimination exhibit great subtlety ofthought and understanding within a given contextbecause pure discrimination increases vacuousintelligence, the recognition that everything is con-nected and, ultimately in the yogic sense, unknow-able. The Shaivite text, Srı Guru Gita, declaredthat the ‘‘one who (thinks he) knows not, knows;one who (thinks he) knows, knows not’’ (SiddhaMeditation Ashrams, 1983, section 40). Pure dis-crimination, in the Vedantic tradition, is attainedthrough the not this, not this (neti, neti) technique,which involves sustained perception coupled withintentional cognitive dissolution of the limitationsof any form of knowledge. (Note that this parti-cular technique involves both recognition and theintention to transcend.) Pure discrimination atthe highest level of vacuous intelligence transcendsall contexts; that is, it becomes free.

Dispassion also manifests in dull, active, andpure states. Jnaneshwar Maharaj, in commentingon the Bhagavad Gita (Kripananda, 1989), des-cribed dull dispassion, ‘‘Just as a traveling whirl-wind gathers up all kinds of objects in its wake,in the same way, the senses wander freely amongthe sense objects’’ (p. 228). He later described theman of pure dispassion, ‘‘Even though the threequalities play fully in his body, he doesn’t allowhimself to be aware of them. When he reaches thisstate, he concentrates firmly on his heart andremains unaware of what his body is doing’’(p. 231). In the yogic sense, dull dispassion, as aform of inertia, is an inability to control desireor attachment. In heavily context-bound indivi-duals, the desire to be free of limitation is notwholly absent. Individuals exhibiting dull dispas-sion are easily distracted, seek immediate self-gratification, are either extroverted in achievingtheir aims, or introverted, suffering inwardly fromunfulfilled desires. The low creativity (LC) groupin the Wallach and Kogan study (1965, 1972) areaverse to taking risks, a sign of dull dispassion.An expression of very dull dispassion lies in therestricted behavioral repertoires of individualswith autism (Turner, 1999) characterized by rep-etition, invariance, avoidance and dislike ofchange, and the unfamiliar. These repertoires indi-cate attachment and probably provide some mea-sure of satisfaction, perhaps a sense of security.Autistic individuals demonstrate impairment in

R. Horan


the generation of novelty, in part due to theincapacity to inhibit prior and inappropriate beha-vior. In yoga psychology, the inability to inhibitbehavior is often due to uncontrolled desire orattachment, which may emerge as the result ofcognitive impairment.

Dull dispassion influenced by revelation resultsin active dispassion. Active dispassion presentsitself in studies (cited in Collins & Amabile,1999) of highly creative individuals as tenacity ofpurpose (Cox, 1926), passion (Bruner, 1962) per-sistence (Newell, Shaw, & Simon, 1962) and driv-ing absorption (Roe, 1952). Active dispassionforms strong attachment, and sensitivity, to theobject of desire, coupled with detachment frommost distracters. Distractions irritate these indivi-duals, causing them to seek solitude. Active dispas-sion is passionate. It tolerates levels of ambiguitythat would cause anxiety to those with dull dispas-sion. The active quality lies between dull and puredispassion. Both LC and HC groups indicate someaspects of active dispassion, although how passio-nate the tendencies are cannot be determined fromthe data.

As revelation increases, pure dispassion arises.Pure dispassion, in creative individuals, manifestsas ‘‘detached devotion.’’ Individuals forget aboutthemselves while thinking, and the ego no longerdominates the task (Henle, 1962). Jnaneshwar(Kripananda, 1989) supports this point of view.In yogic traditions, it is practiced through the yogaof devotion (bhakti yoga). The goal is to experiencethe object of devotion beyond the constraints ofthe ego (Tyagisananda, 1940). Detached devotedindividuals empathize easily and effectively man-age emotions and relationships. They also acceptsocial interdependence. Yoga psychology wouldargue that Goleman’s (1995) theory of emotionalintelligence, as an indicator of real-world success,refers to the quality of pure dispassion as theemotional expansion of the limited sense of self.The HC group exhibits pure dispassion in boththeir enthusiasm (a word that comes from theGreek entheos meaning ‘‘inspired by a god’’) andpopularity. Pure dispassion accepts high levels ofambiguity; yet, paradoxically, exhibits great claritybecause individual perception is not constrainedby a desire for psychological closure. In very pureforms of dispassion, the ultimate distracter is the

sense of limited identity (the ego), which demandspsychological closure and promotes a sense of sep-aration from others. Transcending the ego takescourage and powerful sustained intention. Puredispassion, as the key element in vacuous creativ-ity, arguably lies at the root of great works of artand science as well as personal authenticity. Withthe dissolution of a limited identity, the subject–object dichotomy dissolves and the creatorbecomes the created.

Divergent thinking (DT) is the cognitive processgenerally claimed to represent creative thought. Ittests qualities like ideational fluency (generation ofmultiple ideas), flexibility (generation of multipleclasses of ideas), and originality (statisticalinfrequency). In their study, Wallach and Kogan(1965, 1972) tested for DT using untimed, game-like tests. The predictive and discriminant validityof DT tests, however, has received mixed support(Plucker & Renzulli, 1999). Barron and Harring-ton (1981) reviewed 150 studies that demonstratea significant relationship between DT tests andacceptable nontest indexes of creative behavioror achievement; yet, there remains little evidenceof DT in highly creative individuals. It must beadmitted, though, that few DT tests have beenconducted on highly creative individuals. DT’sflexibility index should underscore fluid creativityby supporting dispassionate tendencies that allowtranscendence of constraints that hinder uniqueresponses. Creative individuals may excel in it,but it can’t be reasonably concluded that DT isan optimal strategy for creative thinking or thatmany unique ideas will lead to a good one. Fromthe yogic perspective, DT, as a dispassionate cog-nitive process, is insufficient to attain higher levelsof creative achievement because the drive towardfreedom is not a function of the quantity of ideas,remote associations, or flexible thinking. Creativ-ity, as defined herein, is the manifestation of theintention to transcend informational limitation.Unfortunately, there is presently little psycho-metric or biometric data on the relationshipbetween DT, dispassion, and intention.

The creativity-intelligence relationship, asdefined by dispassion-discrimination, the threequalities (dull, active, pure), and conceal-revealvariables, can be described in a matrix of ninebasic combinations (see Figure 1). The four



Wallach and Kogan (1965, 1972) groups arepositioned in the matrix into approximately fourequal quadrants. Due to the study’s small samplesize and it’s nature (e.g., unvaried cultural,religious, and socioeconomic groups; students thatdon’t necessarily fall into the overall population’shighest and lowest IQ scores; no evidence ofextreme giftedness; and no measures of dispassionlevels, etc.), these groups probably don’t representthe general population, so students’ intelligenceand creativity test scores are unlikely to be asevenly positioned as the matrix suggests. It shouldbe noted that the intelligence index used in theirstudy didn’t provide a standard IQ score. Becausethe yogic model assumes that IQ is not the solepredictor of discrimination, the matrix becomesonly a rough model. The matrix is shaded to sig-nify four probable divisions of intelligence andcreativity within the general population. The less

easily differentiated high and low areas are indi-cated in the unshaded center. The center portionlies slightly above both the present IQ mean andan estimation of the dispassion mean. The ration-ale for this is based on the implication that IQ is apredictor of discriminatory ability (but not vacu-ous intelligence) and that DT tests are indicatorsof dispassion (but not vacuous creativity). Thet-scores indicated in the matrix for dispassion indi-cate the potential for measurement through a com-bination of DT tests, psychometric measures ofpersonality trait integration, and psychometric=biometric measures of intentional=attentional pre-ferences (see discussion below).

Barron (1963) sums up many of the Institute ofPersonality and Research studies by noting thatthere is a low positive correlation between creativ-ity and intelligence beyond an IQ of 120. This iscalled the threshold effect (Guilford, 1967); thatis, astute creative problem-solving behaviorrequires a minimal IQ, and higher scores providelittle advantage. Empirical support for this con-cept varies widely (Horn, 1976; Torrance, 1967;Wallach & Wing, 1969). It is assumed that certaincomplex problems involving very basic assump-tions (e.g., theories of relativity, quantum mech-anics), high levels of ambiguity, or solutions ofan existential nature are likely to incorporate allthree states (crystal, fluid, vacuous) of creativity–intelligence at both active and pure levels ofdispassion-discrimination. The solutions to suchproblems can initiate paradigm shifts within aparticular field or domain (e.g., theory of evol-ution, cubism, discovery of DNA, artificial intelli-gence). In the yogic perspective, high IQ scores, bythemselves, would indicate a strong discriminatorycapacity coupled with the ability (and perhapspreference) to work within a closed relationalsystem.

Cox’s (1926, cited in Sternberg & O’Hara, 1999)study of 301 geniuses, which estimated IQsthrough the historical records of eminent indivi-duals, included many creatives (e.g., Isaac Newton,Charles Darwin, Mozart, Ludwig Von Beethoven,and Michelangelo). The range of IQs was 140-210(Goethe being the highest), with an estimated aver-age of 165. These studies indicate that creativegeniuses can have high IQs, yet others claim thatit is not necessary for people with high IQs to be

Figure 1. Intelligence-creativity matrix.

R. Horan


extremely creative (Sternberg & O’Hara, 1999).Based on Cox’s results, two new IQ categories,eminent and very eminent, are added to the matrixas further clarification of the standard IQ model’svery superior listing. The matrix places extraordi-narily gifted creatives as more dispassionate (highactive region and above) than individuals withsolely high IQ scores. The medium shaded areaof the matrix (i.e., in the HI-HC quadrant) marksindividuals exhibiting high levels of both creativityand intelligence. The darkly shaded area (i.e., toprow of HI-HC) denotes the potential for the mer-ging of creativity and intelligence in the vacuousstate, assumed to be the inner state of exceptionalcreative genius, with or without evidence of crys-tallized creative output (e.g., they may be highlyself-actualized individuals). The qualities of dis-crimination and dispassion are not orthogonal inthe matrix. The matrix merely indicates a weight-ing for each sector in accordance with the con-ceal-reveal variables. The interplay ofdiscrimination and dispassion within the matrixpromotes, depending on the degree of conceal-ment-revelation, many differing displays of intelli-gence and creativity giving rise to a diversity ofcognitive-affective patterns, social skills, etc. Thecrystal, fluid, and vacuous states form submatriceswithin each sector, creating 81 combinations (92).The major variables (i.e., dispassion-discrimi-nation, conceal-reveal) act upon these submatricesto determine, more exactly, the nature of manycognitive-affective phenomena. It is beyond thescope of this work to describe these subrelation-ships; however, the model predicts that 100% con-cealment in all variables (i.e., very LI coupled withvery strong desire) elicits crystallized output that isdelusional in nature, and revelation at 100% in allvariables is where vacuous intelligence and creativ-ity merge sustain ably in the phenomenon of AUB.

In light of the definitions herein, creativity andintelligence are said to be interdependent for anumber of reasons. First, the recognition of infor-mational limitation is a precursor to having anintention to transcend it. Recognition, whichmeans to acknowledge, is also a quality of cre-ative insight. The word insight means seeing withthe eyes of the mind. It is a form of acknowledge-ment. Recognition, as a derivative of the separ-ation between subject and object, is a form of

measurement. Recognition, as insight, crystallizesor measures the informational potentia surround-ing a particular problem. The resultant crystal-lized creativity, if ill supported by sufficientdomain knowledge (crystallized intelligence) orthe acceptance of the domain or field is con-sidered inappropriate (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).

Intelligence supports creative endeavor in thepreparation, incubation, illumination (as recog-nition), and particularly the verification phase ofthe creative process (Wallas, 1926), where multiplesolutions are pared though critical thinking that isfocused, disciplined, logical, constrained, realistic,practical, dependable, and conservative (Nickerson,1999). This aspect of intelligence is often calledconvergent thinking. Convergent thinking, how-ever, may fall short (that is, lose its optimizedadaptation capacity) when the intellect faces severelimitation in the form of highly complex, orambiguous, problems with no conventional solu-tions. The resulting ambiguity, or ambivalence,can result in what Briggs (2000) called psychologi-cal pain. Ambiguity is more tolerable to creatives,a trait that Keats named ‘‘negative capability,’’that is, ‘‘when a person is capable of being inuncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irri-table reaching after fact and reason’’ (p. 104). Inshort, the creative can stall the desire for psycho-logical closure, a response that may be perceivedas an ego-related strategy designed for optimizingadaptation and survival. It is assumed that whenthe discriminatory intellect, weakened by dulldispassion, faces apparently unavoidable uncer-tainty or high levels of ambiguity, it recoils fromthe unknown and clings to the known (i.e., stickswith the program) by applying various adaptivestrategies such as increasing processing speed,evaluation of sensory information, knowledge,acquisition and by making more effective use ofboth long- and short-term memory. Examples ofthis highly alert processing response are commonlyobserved in life threatening situations.

The Ocean Model’s definition of creativity,alternatively, indicates that intelligence is also sup-ported by creativity (dispassion) in permitting theintellect to venture beyond the existent informa-tional environment. Dispassion allows the powerof discrimination to participate in both the explo-ration and the generation of appropriate solutions,



as well as the acquisition of new knowledge.Dispassion provides the important element ofmotivation (e.g., devotion to or love of the creativeprocess). Motivation is perceived by someresearchers as the key attribute of the creative mind(Collins & Amabile, 1999; Czitsentmihalyi, 1996).Czitsentmihalyi (1996) described creative motiv-ation as autotelic. In yoga, there is no greater moti-vator than freedom. Freedom, however, isperceived differently by different people. For some,it is the goal of developing a creative work, comingup with a new idea, product, or process. For certainindividuals, it is creating a unique lifestyle; for therare individual, it is what yogis call moksha, liber-ation, or AUB, the complete surrender of the ego.To the liberated, every moment, every act, everyperception is filled with sublime astonishment, anunending series of nectarean ‘‘aha!’’ insights. Thisexperience is sometimes called insight-wisdom,where ‘‘the adept’s ordinary field of consciousnessappears to open up. Perception and action nowseem to fuse into a wholly natural feeling, dynamicunity. So something extraordinary has happened’’(Austin, 1999, p. 639). The discriminatory intellectis greatly enhanced by creative vacuity.

Motivation alone does not necessarily lead toappropriate creative output. Individuals lackingpure discrimination are more likely to developa form of crystallized output called personal(‘‘P’’- psychological, or little ‘‘c’’) creativity, evenif fairly knowledgeable in a particular domain,than to exhibit historical (‘‘H’’ or big ‘‘C’’) creativ-ity that embodies creative output that is novel tothe whole of human history and helps shape theideas and standards of culture (Boden, 1991; Gard-ner, 1993 cited by Nickerson, 1999). P=c creativesexhibit novel or unusual creative output appropri-ate to a sense of well being for daily living and jobperformance. The creative output of individualswith low discrimination, such as psychopaths, cer-tain trauma victims, and brain-damaged patients,may develop unusual, imaginative ideas that havelittle value, except perhaps in the mind of the indi-vidual. On the other hand, H=C creatives may notfully realize their capacity for creative freedom ifthey focus solely upon creative works, as opposedto inner transformation.

The crux of the relationship between creativityand intelligence appears to be the sort of choice

made: either ‘stick with the program,’ or transcendit. Acknowledging both recognition and adap-tation strategies, with the nature of choice as thedeterminant factor, one could argue that creativityand intelligence are overlapping sets. However,cases could be made for some of Sternberg andO’Hara’s (1999) other options (see above). Forexample, it can be argued that dispassion is anoptimized adaptation to an existing informationalcontext because it provides flexibility of interpret-ation, as well as new options; therefore, creativityis a subset of intelligence. One could also arguethat recognition itself, and the choices that arisefrom it, are actually attempts to be free of ambi-guity and, therefore, intelligence is a subset ofcreativity. There is less support in the OceanModel for creativity and intelligence being eithercoincident or disjoint sets in the sense that creativ-ity is either an extraordinary result of ordinaryproblem solving, or that creativity is separatefrom intelligence as measured by IQ tests (seeSternberg & O’Hara, 1999, for further discussionof these sets). Although the relationship betweencreativity and intelligence, based on definitionsalone, must remain to some extent ambiguous,yoga tradition declares that creativity and intelli-gence are synonymous for the individual (jivan-mukta, the living-liberated one) thinking andacting from a sustained state of unitary conscious-ness. Below that state, the constructs tend todifferentiate, like the concepts of Shiva andShakti.

Many models have been constructed to explaincreativity and its relationship to intelligence (for adetailed discussion, see Sternberg & O’Hara,1999). Although, it is beyond the scope of this arti-cle to discuss their connection with the OceanModel, it would be useful to explore these relation-ships in other articles, for example (a) Sternbergand Lubart’s (1991, 1996) investment theory (i.e.,buy ideas low, sell high) and alternations in theOcean Model’s conceal-reveal variables withinthe three states (crystal, fluid, vacuous); (b)Gardner’s (1983, 1993, 1995, 2000) theory of mul-tiple intelligences and dispassion-discrimination,their position, and potential evolution, within thematrix; and (c) Guilford’s (1975) creative problemsolving factors and dispassion-discriminationviewed from a neuropsychological perspective.

R. Horan


Empirically Testing Creative Potential Within

The Ocean Model

A few testable hypothesis exist for measuringcreativity within the Ocean Model (a) fluid andvacuous creativity=intelligence will have a positivecorrelation with empathy; (b) intelligence, sup-ported by both fluid and vacuous creativity, willpositively correlate with wisdom; and (c) overallcreative capacity can be expressed in a continuumof personality traits that exhibit varying degrees ofboth ambivalence and separation wherebyincreased levels of dispassion will correlate posi-tively with greater levels of ambivalence and inte-gration. The above hypotheses are probably besttested in diverse populations cross-culturally, andacross genders, in order to better determine therelationship between intelligence and creativityand support, or not, the validity of the definitionsand matrix described herein.

Several studies have supported the hypothesisthat creativity and empathy are correlated pro-cesses (Alligood, 1991; Gallo, 1989; Kalliopuska1992). Carlozzi, Bull, Eells, and Hurlburt (1995)found support for a positive empathy-creativityconnection, as well as a negative correlationbetween empathy and dogmatism that is definedas ‘‘the relative openness or closedness of a per-son’s cognitive framework for receiving, under-standing, evaluating, and acting on stimulusinformation’’ (p. 366). This implies that discrimi-nation, as a broad indicator of intelligence, isinsufficient to elicit empathy. Openness, combinedwith cognitive flexibility (dispassion) is a key fac-tor. Rogers (1959, cited in Decety & Jackson,2004) suggested that empathy means ‘‘to perceivethe internal frame of reference of another personwith accuracy and with the emotional componentsand meanings which pertain thereto as if one werethe person, but without losing the ‘as if’ con-dition’’ (p.74). Decety and Jackson (2004) arguedthat mental simulation of the subjectivity of otherscan be initiated (a) automatically (Gallese, 2001;Gallese & Goldman, 1998; Goldman, 1993) per-haps within the autonomic nervous system (Ax,1964) as a rapid modification of ongoing bodymaps (Damasio, 1994, 2003); and (b) intentionally,such that self-awareness and emotion-regulationallow for evaluation and comparison with others

through a decoupling mechanism between selfinformation and other information. Automaticsimulation and the intentional decoupling betweenself and other can be conceived as discriminatoryprocesses. However, the regulation of emotionand behavior requires a dispassionate intention,especially when resonance with the unknown otheris required.

Self-regulatory disorder (Levine, Freedman,Dawson, Black, & Stuss, 1999) describes patientswith ventromedial prefrontal cortex damage, whoare unable to regulate behavior due to an inabilityto hold a self-representation and concurrently useit to inhibit inappropriate responses. It is feasiblethat this neurological disorder involves a diminish-ing recognition of informational limits (i.e., thelimited self), as well as choice options and adap-tation strategies that adversely affect the abilityto transcend those limitations and effectively enterthe realm of the unknown other. Dispassion, byallowing the adoption of the subjective experienceof others, may bypass psychological projectionand enhance perception. The limited self, althoughnot absent, is held in abeyance. If the self is notclearly conceived while attention is focused onanother, dispassion is dulled due to attachmentand consequent desire for immediate gratificationin the relationship. As dispassion approaches thepure state, it allows for the intuitive experienceof, and resonance with, the affective states ofothers. For example, Lesh (1969) observed a posi-tive correlation between empathy development incounselors and the practice of Zen meditation.Zen meditation elicited openness to experienceand promoted self-actualization, both of whichare correlated with empathy. Herrigel (1953)described the relationship between dispassion,empathy, and the Zen practice of sense with-drawal: ‘‘The door of the senses be closed is notmeant by turning energetically away from a sensi-ble world, but rather by readiness to yield withoutresistance’’ (p. 56ff.). Sense withdrawal, in yogacalled pratyahara, is an attentional exercise intranscending the limitations of sensual infor-mation. Pratyahara does not manifest emotionalcontagion because it involves yogic detachment.It is assumed that integrated states of personalwell-being incorporate the needs of others througha predominance of vacuous intelligence-creativity.



James (1983) declared that ‘‘volition is nothingbut attention’’ (p. 424). Intention, as attention, isa promising avenue of neuropsychologicalresearch into the nature of dispassion and creativ-ity. Schwartz (2002) demonstrated, in obsessivecompulsive disorder (OCD) patients, the powerof volition to transcend distressing, obtrusive,and unwanted thoughts by rerouting and remap-ping neuronal circuitry within the brain throughmindfulness techniques, coupled with redirectingattention to beneficial replacement thoughts. Heattributes the mechanism of neuronal shift to thebrain’s capacity for neuroplasticity and the Quan-tum Zeno Effect (see Stapp, 2004, for moredetails), a phenomenon verified by the NationalInstitute of Standards and Technology in 1990,in which scientists stopped an atomic transitionby choosing to repeatedly look at it. It might beinteresting to test the impact on brain mappingof attentionally shifting away from a sense of self(perhaps through modeling) toward a more fulfil-ling experience of an object or person, as exempli-fied in empathy. Further research on intentionalregulatory behavior and attention governingexperiences of self and other, such as in empathy,plus their relationship to creativity, measures ofdispassion and intelligence would help test therelationship between the definitions herein.

Yogic detachment, or dispassion, is said to notonly enhance creativity (shakti); it can evolve intowisdom, an attribute often attributed to high intel-ligence. The Mills Longitudinal Study, whichinvestigated college women from the ages of 21-62, was employed to test for creativity, wisdom,and their relation (Helson & Srivastava, 2002).Cognitive-affective vitality, otherwise describedas openness=complexity, appeared as the commoncore to both. It was suggested that wisdom is analternative to creative achievement in giving struc-ture to openness. Both involve complexity (includ-ing intelligence, which was significantly correlatedwith both creativity and wisdom). Originality,ambition, autonomy, and perseverance are salientfeatures of creativity, whereas meaning making(i.e., interest and ability in finding undistorted pat-terns of meaning) and benevolence are associatedwith wisdom. The study’s creativity factors arebased on crystallized creativity (e.g., originalouput) and fluid creativity=intelligence (e.g.,

ambition, autonomy, perseverence) while wisdomfactors include crystallized intelligence (e.g.,knowledge) and fluid intelligence=creativity (e.g.,meaning making and benevolence). Wisdom andcreativity appear to be closely linked. In the study,both creativity and wisdom are associated withpersonal growth (i.e., transcendence of limita-tions), with creativity being dynamic and provid-ing a sense of purpose while wisdom focuses onpositive relations with others and greater balance.

Runco, Ebersole, and Mraz (1997) observed asignificant correlation, but no indication ofcausality, between self-actualization and creativityin a study using the How Do You Think Test(Davis & Subkoviac, 1975), Adjective Check List(Gough & Heilbrun, 1980), and Self-ActualizationScale (Jones & Crandall, 1986). The results did notindicate that all creative people are self-actualized.It was not mentioned whether self-actualizedpeople demonstrate creativity, wisdom, or both.In another study, wisdom-related knowledge(Kunzmann & Baltes, 2003) is positively relatedto other-enhancing values, as well as self-enhanc-ing values that are oriented toward self-actualiza-tion and insight into life. It is negatively relatedto values revolving around a pleasurable life. Thissupports the idea that wisdom is related to thecommon good and includes a spiritual orientationthat transcends one’s own physical state (Baltes &Staudinger, 2000; Sternberg, 1998; Takahashi& Overton, 2002). In yoga, wisdom, as the abilityto expand the sense of self beyond the physicalrealm into other, to forego pleasure, to think andact with true benevolence, stems from dispassion.Of course, recognition of one’s limitations isimplied. Like creativity and empathy, wisdomrequires transcending conditioned responses.Further tests can be conducted on the relationshipbetween wisdom, creativity, intelligence, and mys-tical experience, which is also called the state ofsupreme wisdom. Greely (1987) discovered thatmore than 40% of people in the United Statesresponded positively to having had the feeling,which they considered a mystical experience, ofbeing very close to a powerful spiritual force thatseemed to lift them out of themselves. Althoughthere is little supporting empirical evidence, theauthor’s own observations suggest that mysticalexperience increases in frequency and depth as

R. Horan


both dispassion and discrimination increase. Thereverse also seems to hold true: Dispassion anddiscrimination can be furthered through mysticalexperience. A study correlating frequency, type,and depth of mystical experience with creativity,intelligence, and wisdom across a large populationwould be useful.

Wisdom is often conceived as the ability tomake pragmatic choices that support the commongood. This involves intelligence and reflection.Wisdom is, in this respect, considered more of adiscriminative capability. Intelligence is seen tobe correlated with both wisdom and creativity,but more so with wisdom (Sternberg, 1985b,1986). In the Ocean Model, pure discriminationsupported by pure dispassion leads to wisdom.Neither attribute alone is sufficient, although thedevelopment of wisdom may conceivably beginwith either. For example, an individual subjectedto traumatic experience, like a near death experi-ence that results in a deep transformative insightinto his or her existence, can develop great dispas-sion (i.e., love) and wisdom (Talbot, 1991). Alter-natively, creativity may evolve into a greatersense of authenticity leading to both innovationand wisdom. A study (Staudinger, Lopez, & Baltes,1997) based on a diverse sample of 125 men andwomen found a strong predictive contribution ofcreativity to wisdom-related performance, whichindicated that high-scorers for wisdom have theability to be innovative and move beyond thegiven. The Ocean Model suggests that certainhighly creative individuals seek truth just as muchas certain very wise persons seek creative solutionsto life issues. The Vedantic text, Yogavasistha(II:7.15) states ‘‘the power of the wise is from crea-tivity’’ (Chapple, 1986, p. 111). The key factor inthe creativity-wisdom relationship is the level ofpurity. It is assumed that, as revelation increases,creativity and intelligence consciously operate atthe vacuous level to form creative wisdom. TheVedantic text, Astavakra Gita, put it simply:‘‘The man who is wise knows himself in all thingsand all things in himself’’ (Byron, 1990, p. 13).Here, creativity spontaneously serves the greatercommon good and is benevolent (as opposed tounethical), while wisdom is dynamic, original,and carries a sense of transcendent purpose. Thepotential integration of creativity and wisdom

could be further investigated in longitudinalstudies in which dispassion and discriminationare factored in.

For the purposes of this discussion, it is assumedthat dispassion influences empathy and wisdomlevels by forming a continuum of psychologicalseparation-integration that can foster greaterintegration or separation, based on intentionsregarding complex relations between self andother. If so, this opens up the possibility that otherpsychological traits may follow a similar path ofseparation-integration. Csikszentmihalyi (1996)interviewed 91 exceptionally creative individualsand discovered that they displayed complex per-sonalities that embodied polarized traits such asambition-selflessness, pride-humility, extroverted-introverted, etc. Many of these personalitiesexpressed significant ambivalence. From the yogicperspective, this makes perfect sense. Increased dis-passion delimits the individual, enabling him or herto experience reality from numerous perspectives,or what has been called Janusian thinking, takenfrom the Roman god that could see in many direc-tions. Briggs (2000), in his book Fire in theCrucible, described creative geniuses with a veryhigh tolerance for ambivalence, such as Leonardoda Vinci, Ludwig von Beethoven, Pablo Picasso,Isaac Newton, Ernest Hemingway, and others.Briggs cited Bohm, the physicist, who said thatby ‘‘tolerating ambivalence in some area, creatorsare zeroing their visions in on the very groundout of which thought arises’’ (p. 106). Bohm’scomments resonate strongly with vacuous crea-tivity=intelligence.

Creative personalities express the dull, active,and pure qualities through various traits. In theyogic perspective, the difference in dispassionatelevels would lie in the degree of separation or bind-ing between traits. The greater the bindingbetween conflicting traits, the more pure becomesthe form of dispassion; the more separationbetween conflicting traits, the greater is the cogni-tive-affective inflexibility. Figure 2 is a hypotheti-cal, yet operational, delineation of this concept.The active column (adapted from Czitsentmihalyi,1996; see also Austin, 2003) is divided into X andY traits. X traits can be said to be more reality-bound or serious than Y traits. Creatives tend todemonstrate both traits, although not necessarily



all combinations. The active column lists combina-tions of ambivalent traits. The dull column showsa clear separation of the active traits into ‘‘X or Y’’and, with an increased number of desires (i.e., con-cealed dispassion); these traits may tend towardless socially acceptable norms. In the table, theactive traits assertiveness (male) and sensitivity(female) might appear in the dull column as either‘‘insensitivity in achieving goals and managingrelationships’’ or ‘‘hypersensitivity’’ (and evenneurosis if desires are increased further). Theactive traits firmness and flexibility, with less dis-passion, may transform into dull traits like rigidityor instability respectively. There are, of course,many shades in between.

As dispassion increases, both ‘‘X and Y’’ traitsmerge to form ‘‘X ¼ Y.’’ In this column, the cre-ative is beginning to move toward the state of yoga,or union. Pure dispassion resolves ambiguity intofreedom. The vacuous state predominates. Briggs(2000) argued that omnivalence is an importantquality of the creative personality. He defined itas the longing for more. To long for more, the indi-vidual must first recognize the limitations of whatexists. David Bohm, who was interviewed byBriggs, defined omnivalence as the holding ofopposites together such that thought is suspended,

thereby allowing an intelligence beyond thought tocreate new form. The Ocean Model assumes thatBohm is referring to vacuous intelligence and itsrelationship to creativity. When ‘‘X ¼ Y,’’ omniva-lence takes precedence. It is the longing for free-dom from constraint that occurs whenambivalent traits present the threshold, or door-way, to a deeper experience of the subject–objectconnection. According to yoga psychology, thegreater the longing to overcome limitation, thegreater is the transformation of the individual’sperceptions. Longing leads to greater wisdom,devotion, and authenticity. For example, in‘‘X ¼ Y,’’ the ambivalent assertive-sensitive traitsmay merge into a sublime form of empathy thatmanifests as sensitivity in, and proactivity toward,relationships with others through an expandedsense of self. The firm-flexible traits may emergeas ‘‘steady wisdom’’ for one ‘‘whose mind is notshaken by adversity, who does not crave pleasures,and who is free from attachment, fear, and anger’’(Chidvilasananda, 1993, p. 37) and is thereforefirm, as well as wise in his or her ability to adaptappropriately (i.e., be flexible) to all situations forthe common good.

Albert and Runco (1986) argued that it is diffi-cult to distinguish intelligence and creativity at the

Figure 2. Proposed effects of dispassion on creative personality traits.

R. Horan


higher levels of talent and ability. It is reasonableto assume that measuring an individual’s cre-ative-intelligence becomes extremely challengingas creativity and intelligence experience greatervacuity. At higher levels of talent and ability,ambivalent personality traits may be integrated.There are many shades, however, between bothactive and pure personality traits. It is assumedthat varying levels of intention (supported by rec-ognition) will affect these personality traits byshifting them in one direction or the other. Forexample, the trait ‘‘extroversion,’’ coupled withdull discrimination, might appear as a form of‘‘social dependency,’’ and creative rebelliousnessmight translate as uncreative ‘‘orthodoxy.’’ Alter-natively, pure discrimination, coupled with puredispassion, might allow the extrovert to experiencethe ‘‘many as the self,’’ or the creative rebel ‘‘theunchanging within change.’’ Elevated creativeintelligence should culminate in many of theexperiential states listed under ‘‘X ¼ Y,’’ ulti-mately in the mystic experience which, by trans-cending the subject–object dichotomy, increasesmental and emotional flexibility and, by discrimi-nating the Real from the Unreal, evolves into wis-dom. Psychometric instruments designed to testthe dispassionate aspects of psychological inte-gration through personality traits can be com-pared with divergent thinking tests; creativeachievement; biometric studies on attention=inten-intention and affective state management; stan-dard measures of intelligence; and measures ofempathy, wisdom, and self-actualization to assesstheir validity as measures of dispassion.

Although creativity has been explained as theconfluence of numerous factors including cogni-tive, social, and emotional processes; family andformal=informal educational influences; character-istics of domains and fields of knowledge; andsocial=cultural contexts, as well as historicalforces, events, and trends (Feldman, 1999), yogatradition would describe all these factors as beingsubject to the interplay of both discriminationand dispassion. In the Kashmir Shaivite (Singh,1990, p. 72–73) and Shakta Vedanta (Woodroffe,1994, p. 177) traditions, it is taught that knowledge(i.e., information) and desire are both productsof will (iccha shakti), which ultimately determinesthe interaction between subject and object. The

relation between intelligence and creativityseemingly bifurcates when an individual’s choicesand intentions are perceived to be limited, or con-ditioned, by both internal and external environ-ments. It is in the transcendence of theselimitations that higher forms of creativity andintelligence merge. From the yogic perspective,limitations exist as a reminder of the freedom weall share. Intelligence allows us to recognize thatfreedom, while creativity allows us to live it.

References

Albert, R. S., & Runco, M. A. (1986). The achievement of

eminence: A model based on longitudinal study of excep-

tionally gifted boys and their families. In R. J. Sternberg

& J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness

(pp. 332–357). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Albert, R. S., & Runco, M. A. (1999). A history of research on

creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity

(pp. 251–272). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Alligood, M. R. (1991). Testing Roger’s theory of accelerating

change: The relationship among creativity, actualization,

and empathy in persons 18–92 years of age. Western Jour-

nal of Nursing Research, 13, 84–96.

Arnheim, R. (1966). Toward a psychology of art. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Austin, J. H. (1999). Zen and the brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Austin, J. H. (2003).Chase, chance and creativity. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Averill, J. R., Chon, K. K., & Hahn, D. W. (2001). Emotions

and creativity, East and West. Asian Journal of Social Psy-

chology, 4, 165–183.

Ax, A. A. (1964). Goals and methods of psychophysiology.

Psychophysiology, 1, 8–25.

Baltes, P. B., & Straudinger, U. M. (2000). A metaheuristic

(pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excel-

lence. American Psychologist, 55, 122–136.

Barron, F. (1963). Creativity and psychological health.

Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence

and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476.

Boden, M. A. (1991). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms.

New York: Basic Books.

Briggs, J. (2000). Fire in the crucible: Understanding the process

of creative genius. Michigan: Phanes Press.

Bruner, J. (1962). The conditions of creativity. In H. Gruber G.

Terrell & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary approaches

to creative thinking (pp. 1–30). New York: Atherton.

Byron, T. (1990). The heart of awareness, a translation of the

Ashtavakra Gita. Boston: Shambala.

Carlozzi, A. F., Bull, K. S., Eells, G. T., & Hurlburt, J. D.

(1995). Empathy as related to creativity, dogmatism, and

expressiveness. The Journal of Psychology, 129(4), 365–373.



Cattell, R. (1971). Abilities, their structure, growth and action.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Cattell, R. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth, and action.

New York: Elsevier Science.

Chapple, C. (1986). Karma and creativity. Albany: State Uni-

versity of New York.

Cheng, C. Y. (2001). Unity of three truths and three forms of

creativity: Lotus sutra and process philosophy. Journal of

Chinese Philosophy, 28(4), 449–456.

Chidvilasananda, G. (1993). It has to happen inside yourself.

Darshan, 74, 34–40.

Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and crea-

tivity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp.

297–308). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cox, C. (1926). Genetic studies of genius: Volume 2, the early

mental traits of three hundred geniuses. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Optimal experience: Psychological

studies of flow in consciousness. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity, flow, and the psy-

chology of discovery and invention. London: Rider Books.

Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and

the human brain. New York: Oxford University Press.

Damasio, A. R. (2003). Looking for Spinoza: Joy, sorrow, and

the feeling brain. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.

d’Aquili, E., & Newberg, A. (1999). The mystical mind: Probing

the biology of religious experience. Minneapolis, MN:

Fortress Press.

Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of the species by means of natu-

ral selection. London: Murray.

Davis, G. A., & Subkoviak, M. J. (1975). Multidimensional

analysis of a personality-based test of creative potential.

Journal of Educational Measurement, 12, 37–43.

Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture

of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience

Reviews, 3(2), 71–100.

Deikman, A. J. (1969), Deautomatization and the mystic

experience. In C. T. Tart (Ed.), Altered states of conscious-

ness (pp. 324–338). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Dennett, D.C. (1991). Consciousness explained. Boston, MA:

Little Brown.

Dietrich, A. (2004). Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the

experience of flow. Consciousness and Cognition, 13,

746–761.

Dyczkowski, M. S. G. (1989). The doctrine of vibration: An

analysis of the doctrines and practices of Kashmir Shaivism.

Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass.

Edelman, G., & Tonini, G. (2000). Consciousness: How matter

becomes imagination. London: Penguin.

Eliot, T. S. (1944). Four quartets. London: Faber and Faber.

Feist, G. J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and

scientific creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of

creativity (pp. 275–279). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Feldman, D. H. (1999). The development of creativity. In R. J.

Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 169–183).

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Fernandez, R. (2000). The play of freedom: An aesthetic

approach to Kashmir Shavism. Paper presented at the Fron-

tiers of Transculturality in Contemporary Aesthetics Con-

ference, University of Bologna, Italy.

Feuerstein, G. (1989). Yoga: The technology of ecstasy. New

York: St. Martins Press.

Gallese, V. (2001). The ‘‘shared manifold’’ hypothesis: From

mirror neurons to empathy. Journal of Consciousness

Studies, 8, 33–50.

Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. I. (1998). Mirror neurons and the

simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive

Sciences, 2, 493–501.

Gallo, D. (1989). Educating for empathy, reason and imagin-

ation. Journal of Creative Behavior, 23, 98–115.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple

intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds, an anatomy of creativity

seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stra-

vinsky, Eliot, Graham and Gandhi. New York: Basic

Books.

Gardner, H. (1995). Leading minds. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (2000). Intelligence refrained: Multiple intelligences

for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.

Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelli-

gence: Explorations with gifted students. New York: Wiley.

Ghiselin, B. (1952). The creative process. New York: Mentor.

Goldman, A. I. (1993). Ethics and cognitive science. Ethics,

103(2), 337–360.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter

more than IQ. New York: Bantam.

Gough, H., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1980). Adjective check list

manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Goswami, A., & Goswami, M. (1999). Quantum creativity:

Waking up to your creativepotential. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Greely, A. (1987). Mysticism goes mainstream. American

Health, 6(1), 47–49.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Guilford, J. P. (1975). Creativity: A quarter century of progress.

In I. A. Taylor & J. W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in crea-

tivity (pp. 37–59). Chicago: Aldine.

Hameroff, S. R., & Penrose, R. (1996). Conscious events as

orchestrated spacetime solutions. Journal of Consciousness

Studies, 3(1), 36–53.

Hattie, J., & Rogers, H. J. (1986). Factor models for assessing

the relation between creativity and intelligence. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 78, 482–485.

Helson, R., & Srivastava, S. (2002). Creative and wise people:

Similarities, differences, and how they develop. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1430–1440.

Henle, M. (1962). The birth and death of ideas. In H. Gruber G.

Terrell & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary approaches

to creative thinking (pp. 31–62). New York: Atherton.

Herrigel, E. (1953). Zen in the art of archery. New York:

Pantheon.

Horn, J. L. (1976). Human abilities: ‘A review of research and

theory in the early 1970s.’ Annual Review of Psychology,

27, 437–485.

R. Horan


Intelligence and Its Measurement: A Symposium. (1921). Journal

of Educational Psychology, 12, 123–147, 195–216, 271–275.

Iyengar, B. K. S. (1993). Light on the Yoga Sutras of Pata~nnjali.

San Francisco: Aquarian.

James, W. (1983). The principles of psychology. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Jones, A., & Crandall, R. (1986). Validation of a short index of

self-actualization. Personality and Social Psychology Bull-

etin, 12, 63–73.

Kalliopuska, M. (1992). Creative way of living. Psychological

Reports, 70, 11–14.

Kant, I. (1992). Critique of pure reason (N. K. Smith, Trans.).

London: MacMillan.

Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London: Arkana.

Kripananda, Sw. (1989). J~nnaneshwar’s Gita: A rendering of the

J~nnaneshwari. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Kunzmann, U., & Baltes, P. B. (2003). Beyond the traditional

scope of intelligence: Wisdom in action. In R. J. Sternberg,

J. Lautry, & T.I. Lubart (Eds.), Models of intelligence for

the next millennium (pp. 329–343). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Lau, D. C. (1982). Chinese classics: Tao Te Ching. Hong Kong:

Chinese University Press.

Lesh, T. V. (1969). The relationship between Zen meditation and

the development of accurate empathy. Unpublished doctoral

thesis, University of Oregon.

Levine, B., Freedman, M., Dawson, D., Black, S. E., & Stuss,

D. T. (1999). Ventral frontal contribution to self-

regulation: Convergence of episodic memory and inhi-

bition. Neurocase, 5, 263–275.

Loori, J. D. (2005), The zen of creativity: Cultivating your artis-

tic life. New York: Ballantine Books.

Lubart, T. I. (1994). Product-centered self-evaluation and the

creative process. New Haven, CT: Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Yale University.

May, R. (1975). The courage to create. New York: Norton.

Mayer, R. E. (1983). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. New

York: Freeman.

Merriam-Webster, Inc. (2005). Merriam-Webster collegiate dic-

tionary (11th Ed.) Springfield, MA: Author.

Muktananda, Sw. (1971). The play of consciousness. South

Fallsburg, NY: SYDA Foundation.

Muktananda, Sw. (1997). Nothing exists that is not siva. South


Muktananda, Sw. (1998). Conversations with Swami Mukta-

nanda: The early times. South Fallsburg, NY: SYDA

Foundation.

Muller-Ortega, P. (1990). To taste beauty. Darshan, 39,

62–69.

Mumford, M. D., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Redmond, M. R.

(1994). Problem construction and cognition: Applying

problem representations in ill-defined domains. In M. A.

Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativ-

ity (pp. 3–39). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Newall, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1962). The process of

creative thinking. In H. Gruber, G. Terrell, & M. Wertheimer

(Eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking

(pp. 43–62). New York: Atherton.

Nickerson, R. S. (1999) Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg

(Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 392–430). Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Nisker, W. (2002), Einstein and Buddha: The parallel sayings.

Berkeley, CA: Seastone.

Ochse, R. (1990). Before the gates of excellence: The determi-

nants of creative genius. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Osho. (1999). Creativity: Unleashing the forces within. New

York: St. Martins Press.

Penrose, R., Shimony, A., Cartwright, N., & Hawking, S.

(1999). The large, the small and the human mind.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric

approaches to the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg

(Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 39–40). Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Rama, S., Ballentine, R., & Ayaja, S. (1976). Yoga and psycho-

therapy: The evolution of consciousness. Honesdale, PA:

Himalayan International Institute.

Roe, A. (1952). A scientist examines 64 eminent scientists.

Scientific American, 187, 21–25.

Rogers, C. (1959). A theory of therapy, and interpersonal rela-

tionships as developed in the client-centered framework. In

J. S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of science, Volume 3:

Formulations of the person in the social context (pp. 184–

256). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (1999), Sparks of

genius: The 13 thinking tools of the world’s most creative

people. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1986). The threshold theory

regarding creativity and intelligence: An empirical test with

gifted and non-gifted children. Creative Child and Adult

Quarterly, 11, 212–218.

Runco, M. A., Ebersole, P., & Mraz, W. (1997). Creativity

and self-actualization. In M. A. Runco & R. Richards

(Eds.), Eminent creativity, everyday creativity and health

(pp. 265–273). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

Schwartz, J. M., & Begley, S. (2002). The mind and the brain:

Neuroplasticity and the power of mental force. New York:

Regan Books.

Shankara, A. (1978), Shankara’s crest jewel of discrimi-

nation (Viveka-Chudamani) (Swami Prabhavananda &

C. Isherwood, Trans.). Hollywood, CA: Vedanta.

Shankaracharya. (1993). Aparokshanubhuti, or self-realization

(Vimuktananda, Trans.). Calcutta, India: Advaita Ashrama.

Shantananda, Sw. (1999). Sankalpa: The power of intention.

Darshan, 142, 4.

Shantananda, Sw. (2003), The splendor of recognition. South


Siddha Meditation Ashrams. (1983). Srı Guru Gita: Song of the

Guru. The nectar of chanting. South Fallsburg, NY: SYDA

Foundation.

Siegler, R. S. (1984). Mechanisms of cognitive growth: Variation

and selection. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Mechanisms of cog-

nitive development (pp. 141–162). New York: Freeman.

Sierra, M., & Berrios, G. E. (1998). Depersonalization: Neuro-

biological perspectives. Biological Psychiatry, 44, 898–908.



Singh, J. (1990). Shiva Sutras: The Yoga of Supreme Identity.

Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Singh, J. (1991). Spanda Karikas. Delhi, India: Motilal

Banarsidass.

Stapp, H. P. (2004). Mind, matter and quantum mechanics (2nd

ed.). Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Staudinger, U. M., Lopez, D. F., & Baltes, P. B. (1997), The

psychometric location of wisdom-related performance:

Intelligence, personality and more? Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1200–1214.

Sternberg, R. J. (1984). Toward a triarchic theory of intelli-

gence. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 269–315.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985a). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of intel-

ligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985b). Implicit theories of intelligence, crea-

tivity and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 49, 607–627.

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Intelligence, wisdom, and creativity:

Three is better than one. Educational Psychologist, 21(3),

175–190.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The nature of creativity: Contemporary

psychological perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of

General Psychology, 2, 347–365.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory

of creativity and its development. Human Development,

34, 1–32.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cul-

tivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York:

Free Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity.

American Psychologist, 51, 677–688.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativ-

ity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg

(Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & O’Hara, L. A. (1999). Creativity and intel-

ligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity

(pp. 251–272). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Takahashi, M., & Overton, W. F. (2002). Wisdom: A culturally

inclusive developmental perspective. International Journal

of Behavioral Development, 26, 269–277.

Talbot, M. (1991). The holographic universe. New York:

HarperCollins.

Torrance, E. P. (1967). The Minnesota studies of creative beha-

vior: National and international extensions. Journal of

Creative Behavior, 1, 137–154.

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking:

Norms technical manual. Lexington, MA: Ginn.

Turner, M. A. (1999). Generating novel ideas: Fluency per-

formance in high-functioning and learning disabled indivi-

duals with autism. Journal of Child Psychology and

Psychiatry, 40(2), 189–201.

Tyagisananda, Sw. (1940). Aphorisms on the Gospel of Divine

Love or Narada Bhakti Sutras. Madras, India: Sri

Ramakrishna Math.

Underhill, E. (1990). Mysticism. New York: Image, Doubleday.

Vivekananda, Sw. (1986) Vedanta: Voice of freedom (Sw.

Chetananda, Ed.). St. Louis, MO: Vedanta Society.

Wallach, M., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young

children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction.

New York: Holt, Rheinhart, and Winston.

Wallach, M., & Kogan, N. (1972). Creativity and intelligence

in children. In J. M. Hunt (Ed.), Human intelligence

(pp. 165–181). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Wallach, M. A., & Wing, C. W., Jr. (1969). The talented stu-

dent: A validation of the creativity-intelligence distinction.

New York: Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston.

Wallis, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Wechsler, D. (1991). Manual for the wechsler intelligence scale

for children–Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological

Corporation.

Woodroffe, J. (1993). The world as power. Madras, India:

Ganesh.

Woodroffe, J. (1994). The garland of letters. Madras, India:

Ganesh.

R. Horan


creativity and intelligence

Documents