In The Antichrist, Nietzsche says:
[size=95]In every healthy society there are three physiological types, gravitating toward differentiation but mutually conditioning one another, and each of these has its own hygiene, its own sphere of work, its own special mastery and feeling of perfection. It is [i]not [/i]Manu [the supposed author of [i]The Laws of Manu[/i]] but nature that sets off in one class those who are chiefly intellectual [[i]geistig[/i]], in another those who are marked by muscular strength and strength of temperament, and in a third those who are distinguished in neither one way or the other, the mediocre---the last-named represents the great majority, and the first two the select.
[section 57, trans. Mencken, amended in part by yours truly.][/size]
I think said muscular strength follows from said strength of temperament, as those with a stronger temperament naturally exert themselves more. We have then two qualities: intellectuality and strength of temperament. The three types are then 1) those who stand out for the former quality; 2) those who stand out for the latter quality; and 3) those who stand out for neither.
The Laws of Manu says:
[size=95]24. Know Goodness (sattva), Activity (ragas), and Darkness (tamas) to be the three qualities of the Self, with which the Great One always completely pervades all existences.
25. When one of these qualities wholly predominates in a body, then it makes the embodied (soul) eminently distinguished for that quality.
26. Goodness is declared (to have the form of) knowledge, Darkness (of) ignorance, Activity (of) love and hatred; such is the nature of these (three) which is (all-) pervading and clings to everything created.
27. When (man) experiences in his soul a (feeling) full of bliss, a deep calm, as it were, and a pure light, then let him know (that it is) among those three (the quality called) Goodness.
28. What is mixed with pain and does not give satisfaction to the soul one may know (to be the quality of) Activity, which is difficult to conquer, and which ever draws embodied (souls towards sensual objects).
29. What is coupled with delusion, what has the character of an undiscernible mass, what cannot be fathomed by reasoning, what cannot be fully known, one must consider (as the quality of) Darkness.
30. I will, moreover, fully describe the results which arise from these three qualities, the excellent ones, the middling ones, and the lowest.
31. The study of the Vedas, austerity, (the pursuit of) knowledge, purity, control over the organs, the performance of meritorious acts and meditation on the Soul, (are) the marks of the quality of Goodness.
32. Delighting in undertakings, want of firmness, commission of sinful acts, and continual indulgence in sensual pleasures, (are) the marks of the quality of Activity.
33. Covetousness, sleepiness, pusillanimity, cruelty, atheism, leading an evil life, a habit of soliciting favours, and inattentiveness, are the marks of the quality of Darkness.
[Chapter XII, trans. Bühler.][/size]
Ragas, usually spelled rajas, is usually translated as “passion”. We can say then that Activity (the “exertion” mentioned before) follows from passion/temperament.
But in The Laws of Manu there are four castes. These are traditionally understood as follows.
In the Brahmanas (priests), sattva predominates;
in the Kshatriyas (warriors), rajas predominates;
in the Vaishyas (peasants), rajas and tamas predominate;
in the Sudras (servants), tamas predominates.
Or:
in the Brahmanas, sattva predominates;
in the Kshatriyas, rajas predominates over sattva;
in the Vaishyas, rajas predominates over tamas;
in the Sudras, tamas predominates.
I think the reason it says “over sattva” and “over tamas” is that otherwise, there would be no distinction between Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. About the Brahmanas and the Sudras, on the other hand, it is not necessary to say “over”. But let’s do so anyway.
In the Brahmanas, sattva predominates over rajas;
in the Kshatriyas, rajas predominates over sattva;
in the Vaishyas, rajas predominates over tamas;
in the Sudras, tamas predominates over rajas.
There can be no combination of sattva and tamas, as these are opposites—just as in the classical elements, as traditionally understood:
in Fire, sattva predominates over rajas;
in Air, rajas predominates over sattva;
in Water, rajas predominates over tamas;
in Earth, tamas predominates over rajas.
We have then four types, symbolised by the classical elements. This is common in typology.
But why does Nietzsche say there are three types, when The Laws of Manu says there are four? Originally (i.e., before the Aryans invaded and conquered the Hindu Valley civilisation), there were three; and the surviving vanquished were simply added at the bottom of the pyramid, as servants. But originally, the then-lowest caste must already have been servants in a sense, as without those there can be no culture-pyramid:
[size=95]Culture, which is chiefly a genuine need for art, rests upon a terrible basis [...]. In order that there may be a broad, deep, and fruitful soil for the development of art, the enormous majority must, in the service of a minority, be slavishly subjected to life's struggle, to a greater degree than their own wants necessitate. At their expense, through the surplus of their labour, that privileged class is to be relieved from the struggle for existence, in order to create and to satisfy a new world of want.
[Nietzsche, 'The Greek State'.][/size]
The above still holds even if we don’t agree that culture is chiefly a genuine need for art (but instead, for example, for philosophy—but then, is genuine philosophy not “the highest kind of poetry” (Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, ‘Values’)?).
Vaishyas and Sudras are then simply specialisations of the third and lowest caste—in principle, at least.
A few years ago, I wrote:
[size=95]In Hindu thought there are the three [i]gunas[/i], or modes of nature. They are rajas, sattva, and tamas. The highest of these is sattva, the lowest, tamas. Let us first consider the middle one, rajas. [u][i]Rajas [/i]is cognate with the Latin [i]rex[/i], the English "ruler".[/u] It is the "lust to rule" or "passion for power" ([i]Herrschsucht[/i]) praised by Zarathustra in his speech Of the Three Evils. It is the will to power - the will to dominion (lordship).
"Will" is a resultant. It results from a coordination of forces, which stimulate each other. If these forces are not well coordinated, or if they are simply lacking, the result is a chaos or absence of forces, respectively. In both cases, the result is [i]tamas[/i], inertia. So tamas is the lowest level of will to power - the impotence to power, as Nietzsche calls it in The Antichristian.
Sattva on the other hand is the highest level of will to power.
[[url]http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=1913979&sid=4fedbcb17327862654e2e9d4afb62f3d#p1913979[/url]][/size]
The part I underlined is false, but that doesn’t really harm my association: Nietzsche says the will to power is a pathos, after all (WP 635).
Also in The Will to Power, it says:
[size=95]The teaching [i]mêden agan[/i] ["nothing in excess"] applies to men of overflowing strength---not to the mediocre. The [i]enkrateia [/i]["temperance"] and [i]askêsis [/i]["exercise; asceticism"] is only a stage toward the heights: the 'golden nature' is higher.
"Thou shalt"---unconditional obedience in Stoics, in the Christian and Arab orders, in the philosophy of Kant (it is immaterial whether to a superior or to a concept).
Higher than "thou shalt" is "I will" (the heroes); higher than "I will" stands "I am" (the gods of the Greeks).
The barbarian gods express nothing of the pleasure of restraint---are neither simple nor frivolous nor moderate.
[[i]WP [/i]940, trans. Kaufmann, entire.][/size]
The men of overflowing strength are of course the warriors. Through enkrateia and askêsis, these can dam the overflow of their strength and temper their temperament. This is how I understand sattva: as the curbing of rajas—the will to power—by itself. Compare:
[size=95][A]n ascetic life is a self-contradiction. Here a ressentiment without equal is in control, something with an insatiable instinct and will to power, which wants to become master, not over something in life but over life itself, over its deepest, strongest, most basic conditions; here an attempt is being made to use one’s force [[i]Kraft[/i]] to block up the wells of one's force[.]
[Nietzsche, [i]GM [/i]III.11][/size]
Of course this does not wholly apply to what Nietzsche says about askêsis (see Kaufmann’s footnote to WM 940)—the aim is not to block up the wells of force, but to curb overflowing force (the word translated by Kaufmann as “strength” is probably also Kraft; I will verify this later). Still, it allows us to see that sattva, Nietzscheanly understood, is not qualitatively different from rajas.