Spirituality and Indian Psychology: Lessons from ... - Mandhata Global

Characteristics of Indian Psychology
benefits and disadvantages!), and so forth. So, cArvAka’s psychology is as much
Indian Psychology as Adi zankara’s; Dhirubhai Ambani’s psychology is as much
Indian Psychology as Gandhi’s; sati ansuyA’s psychology is as much Indian
Psychology as Kasutraba’s or Parveen Babi’s (the starlet and actress of Mumbai who
lived together with Danny Denzongpa publicly in the 1970s). rAm-lakSamaNa’s
psychology is as relevant to Indian Psychology as is the Ambani (Mukesh-Anil)
brothers’. rAvaNA’s psychology is as important for Indian Psychology as is rAma’s.
We have no choice but to study every aspect of Indian life, people, and society
from psychological perspectives. In other words, as a discipline it is a field of
knowledge that captures every aspect of India when it comes to psychology. I also
think that some Indians are correct in being logical positivists, and they should
continue to be so. They do generate laws that are good for the box they work in.
My only request to them would be, if possible, not to think that their box is the only
show in town. So long as they do not tell others to do what they do, and do not
control the resource to penalize Indian Psychology researchers for doing what they
value, right or wrong is only a matter of perspective, we can continue to have a
dialogue.
Third, insights from Indian classical texts as well as folk traditions must be used
to build and develop theories. There should not be any reservation about calling a
model derived from the bhagavadgItA or the upaniSads “Indian.” This also means
that models derived from Buddhist and Jain texts, principles derived from the Guru
Granth Sahib, the Quran and Bible as they are understood and practiced in India,
or the Sufi tradition would all be “Indian,” as Indian as any models derived from
the Hindu texts.
Fourth, philosophy and psychology are not and should not be divorced as disciplines,
and theories and methods should be derived from the Indian worldview
grounded in Indian philosophy. We should be open to multiple epistemologies and
ontologies and not impose our favorite one as the only alternative.
Fifth, the humanistic approach to research fits naturally with Indian Psychology
in contrast to the scientific approach. Indian Psychology is more accepting of what
knowledge is without prejudice to how it is created than the West where experimental
method rules and everything else is suspect. This may be a cultural difference
between the USA (or the West) and India (or the East). But it is a significant difference
that calls for Indian Psychology researchers to deviate from Western psychology
in method, content, and theory.
In a related vein, and to put it strongly, yoga is not science (Bhawuk, 2003b). 24
It has become quite popular to call everything a science: science of God (Schroeder,
1998), science of mind (Homes, 1926), science of kRSNa consciousness (Prabhupad,
1968), science of self-realization, and so forth. The characteristics of science were
24 Again, there are many Indian Psychology scholars who take the position that yoga is science,
and I respect their perspective but do not agree with them. The method of science is different from
that of yoga, because science looks outside the individual, and yoga looks inside the individual. It
is not impossible to bridge the two, but it is not as easy as it seems. Again, I am taking an extreme
position to start a dialogue rather than to impose my position on others.
181