The Yogic Gunas, Attachment Styles and Pete Walker’s 4 F’s
In my work as a therapeutic coach, it is vital to hold space for the complexity of being human. No single model or theory ever feels enough because the human psyche just isn’t that tidy. I often reflect on the interplay between the frameworks I use professionally, and the philosophies that shape me personally.
This piece brings some of those threads together, mapping the three gunas from yogic philosophy (a lens that shapes how I understand energy and states of being), alongside Bowlby’s attachment theory and Pete Walker’s 4 F trauma responses, which form key parts of my professional framework, particularly in terms of the therapeutic aspect.
I have been exploring aspects of yogic philosophy with my friend, also a therapist. We have been away twice to immerse ourselves in yoga practice and discussion, using the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali as a guide. On our last trip, a few weeks ago, we leant into the concepts of Vairagya (non-attachment) and the Gunas. It is the latter that I explore in this post.
The Gunas: Understanding Emotional Energy & Patterns
Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas are central concepts from yogic philosophy that describe three essential energies present in all of nature. I don’t use yoga or the gunas directly in my client work, but they inform how I observe internal states, rhythms, and responses in myself, and on occasion, in others.
- Sattva – clarity, harmony, presence, truth
- Rajas – restlessness, overactivity, striving, passion, aggression
- Tamas – heaviness, withdrawal, confusion, lethargy, dissociation
These are not moral categories, but states that we move in and out of. Noticing them helps me reflect on what is influencing my own energy or response in a moment and how that might mirror, meet, or contrast what a client is bringing.
Attachment Styles & The 4 F’s: A Trauma-Informed Framework
In my therapeutic coaching practice, I sometimes draw on attachment theory and complex trauma responses to understand relational dynamics and survival strategies. These give clients language to understand themselves and/or others in deeply compassionate ways:
Attachment Styles and Corresponding Tendencies in the Context of Relationships:
- Secure - comfortable with closeness and autonomy
- Anxious - fearful of abandonment, hyper-attuned
- Avoidant - emotionally distant, values independence
- Disorganised - fears intimacy and rejection, lacks clear strategy
The 4 F’s (Pete Walker) and Associated Survival Tendencies :
- Fight - defensive, controlling, anger
- Flight - overworking, anxiety, perfectionism
- Freeze - numbness, withdrawal, dissociation
- Fawn - people-pleasing, merging, appeasement
The 4 F’s are adaptive, often unconscious strategies developed to navigate environments in early childhood that didn’t feel safe or attuned. They aren’t problems to be fixed, but responses to be gently understood and softened. I wrote more about them here.
So here is a summary of how I see that these concepts correlate:
Guna | Attachment Styles | Primary 4F Response | Energetic / Emotional Quality |
Tamas | Avoidant / Disorganised | Freeze / Fawn | Shutdown, emotional numbing, appeasement through passivity, difficulty initiating or asserting. |
Rajas | Anxious / Avoidant-Fight | Fight / Flight | Hyperactivity, urgency, control, restlessness, perfectionism, striving to escape discomfort. |
Sattva | Secure / Earned Secure | Integration / Regulation | Grounded presence, clear boundaries, agency, discernment, authentic responsiveness. |
What is important to note here is that none of these are fixed. We all cycle through these states depending on environment, relationships, and our level of nervous system regulation.
If a client is stuck in a “freeze” state, I may recognise both the Tamas quality (energetic heaviness, difficulty accessing clarity) and the trauma-informed need for safety and pacing. That understanding helps me hold space in a way that honours their nervous system, while staying attuned to subtle shifts that may indicate readiness for movement or change.
Or if someone is highly anxious, over-processing, or perfectionistic, I might sense the Rajas energy; they are spinning plates, activated, trying to do their way into safety. Naming that, gently, often helps a client find their own breath.
And in moments of presence, groundedness, truth-telling I may recognise the Sattvic state. Not as a goal to strive toward, but as a space we touch when there’s enough safety, enough trust, and enough regulation to be with what is.
You Don’t Have to Choose One Lens
This post isn’t suggesting you need to learn yoga philosophy to heal trauma or work therapeutically, or that attachment theory alone can explain everything. Rather, it’s an exploration of what might happen when our inner frameworks and professional tools begin to talk to each other.
Bringing these worlds together allows me to be more fluid and responsive.
When I reflect on my own growth as a practitioner and a person, I see the integration of these systems as a kind of relational alchemy. They help me hold more nuance, more compassion, and more creativity in how I support others.
I wrote about the Yogic Vrittis and REBT here.
