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

Discovering or Mining Models from Scriptures
and examining other evidence (including anecdotes, qualitative observations, and
data), leads to the development of emic-embedded theories and models, and by
synthesizing such models with existing Western and cross-cultural theories and
data, one should be able to develop context-free universal theories as well as universal
theories with cultural contexts, which could be called global theories for
psychology, management, and other fields of human endeavor. Such an approach
can expand the scope of research for Western and cross-cultural theories and in the
long run will help in the search of general theories.
Building Models by Content Analysis of Scriptures
A content analysis of a religious or other such texts by using key words can lead to
the development of models about constructs such as peace, spirituality, karma,
dharma, identity, and so forth. This method was illustrated in Chapter 7 where a
model with multiple paths for peace was developed. Also, in Chapter 8, karma was
analyzed using this methodology. Thus, the methodology has promise. Future
research could focus on other constructs like manas, buddhi, ahaGkAra, antaHkaraNa,
kSamA (or forgiveness), karuNa (or compassion), and so forth, which can
easily be studied following this approach.
Discovering or Mining Models from Scriptures
Sometimes models exist in the scriptures that need to be discovered or mined and
polished to fit with the relevant literature. 3 For example, in Chapter 6, a process
model of how desire and anger cause one’s downfall was derived from the second
Canto of the bhagavadgItA (see Figure 6.1). The 62nd verse delineates this process
by stating that when a person thinks (dhyAyataH) about objects (viSayAn), he or she
3 Both Vijayan and Anand do not think that “polishing” captures the spirit of what I am saying.
Scriptures are known for offering their teaching in sutra (or aphorism) form where the beginning
and end states are mentioned and the details of the process omitted. Often a commentator or
bhASyakAr explicates the process sometimes by bringing other constructs and, at other times, by
giving examples. What is being done in the polished model is similar to what a bhASyakAr does.
For example, I explain how goal setting, a well-established psychological construct in Western
psychology, mediates desires and anger. Anand thinks it may be better to call it an explicated
model [Chandrasekar, Personal Communication (2009)]. Vijayan Munusamy [Personal
Communication (2009)], on the other hand, noted that what is being done under the label of “polished
to fit” is akin to what is referred to as “theoretical sensitivity” in grounded theory when a
researcher uses his or her personal and temperamental bent as well as theoretical insights to create
a theory that fits the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, pp. 46–47). I think both perspectives together
capture the process of polishing the model extracted from the scripture as the researcher is being
a bhASyakAr and in being that brings his or her theoretical sensitivity to the process of polishing
the extracted model.
189