The Core and Context of Indian Psychology: Ajit K. Dalal

This article makes an effort to conceptualise the emerging field of scholarship called Indian Psychology
(IP) in the backdrop of the disciplinary developments. After situating IP in the disciplinary matrix,
the article articulates the meaning and scope of IP, its critical features and misconceptions about its
conceptualisation. It is argued that IP is a school of psychology primarily rooted in the diverse Indian
thought systems with panhuman appeal. It has potential to offer an encompassing vision which covers
the vast expanse of the human consciousness from a dynamic experiential vantage point. As a theory
and practice, IP is practical and transcendental in nature. While IP chiefly addresses the existential
issues from a first person perspective, it is inclusive in approach and does not ignore the mundane
concerns of everyday life and social welfare.
The Core and Context

of Indian Psychology
AJIT K. DALAL
University of Allahabad, Allahabad
GIRISHWAR MISRA
University of Delhi, Delhi
Keywords: Indian psychology, experiential knowledge, transcendental,

tradition, self
Acknowledgements: The authors are highly grateful to two anonymous reviewers and also to
Anand C. Paranjpe, R.C. Tripathi and Matthijs Cornelissen for their constructive criticism of
the earlier versions of this article.
Address correspondence concerning this article to Ajit K. Dalal, Department of Psychology,

University of Allahabad, Allahabad – 211 002, India. [email protected]
Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

SAGE Publications Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/Washington DC
DOI: 10.1177/097133360902200105
Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

122 / AJIT K. DALAL and GIRISHWAR MISRA
The Core and Context of Indian Psychology
Indian Psychology (IP) has its roots in the diverse traditions of knowledge
deliberated upon in various texts (Shastra), as well as the practices, artifacts
and meanings embodied in various forms, shared by the people (Loka) in the
zone of Indian civilisation. It is part of a living tradition which has continued
unabated since time immemorial. As Thapar (2002) has remarked “at certain
levels there are aspects of cultural traditions in India that can be traced to
roots as far back as a few thousand years” (p. xxv) (see also Basham, 1954).
Therefore, IP is different and broader than the academic psychology as it
began in India in the beginning of the last century under the aegis of the
scheme of Western domination. IP characterises the Indian psychological
viewpoints which are rooted in the Indian civilisation. IP has evolved through
rigorous observation, experimentation and reflection, through training
under Gurus, continuous contemplation and sharing of personal accounts of
inner experiences. This knowledge base has grown, diversified and survived
through many challenges and upheavals. It still continues, in a plural mode,
to shape in explicit, as well as, implicit ways the dominant cultural ethos
of the Indian people.
The thought systems and practices of IP, however, are panhuman in their
basic conceptual orientation (Nakamura, 1997). Integrally bound with
Eastern philosophies, IP has evolved not as a moralistic but as a cultural dis-
course on world views and epistemologies, which offers an alternative to the
logico-positivistic enterprise of Western psychology. Though originated in
the Indian subcontinent, the concern has been to free human beings from
bondages and suffering, wherever they are located and whatever their sources
are. This discourse has grown around the essential nature of one’s being and
the various paths through which one comes to know about it. IP has en-
deavoured for creating choices, finding out one’s own dharma (duty) and
pursuing one’s own path of evolution in a wider time–space framework. It
situates human functioning in the cosmic context within which are embedded
the personal, interpersonal and communal level engagements. Such an ethos
tends to promote democracy in ideas. It offers freedom to engage in diverse
modes in a spirit of pluralistic enquiry and engagement. Indeed IP is built
on the edifice of diverse schools of materialistic/realistic as well as idealistic
thoughts. They offer disparate perspectives on understanding life and its
potential for participatory growth and evolution in an interdependent

The Core and Context of Indian Psychology / 123
world of existence. Menon (2005) takes the view that IP has expanded the
conventional definition of psychology from the “science of human behaviour”
to “human possibility and progress”. It has nurtured a world view informed
by continuity, interdependence and connectivity across all life forms. It em-
phasises an inclusive notion of field rather than individual as the centre
of reality. The field (Kshetra) and knower of the field (Kshetrajya) are not
mutually excusive. By situating humans in a wider space–time continuum,
this tradition offers a whole range of theories and concepts pregnant with
many exciting hypotheses about human nature, their life course and modal-
ities of worldly engagements.
Indian sages and thinkers were struck by the immensity of the universe
and the empirically inexhaustible mystery of life. This wonder of ex-
istence is portrayed in the hymns of the Vedas, which attribute divinity to
the striking aspects of nature (Radhakrishnan, 1953) and the human mind
(Sri Aurobindo, 1939/2006). In the Vedic texts it was held that the universe
has evolved out of One. This first principle of “that One” (tad ekam) is con-
sidered uncharacterisable. It is without qualities or attributes, neither positive
nor negative. Any attempt to describe it is to delimit and bind that which
is limitless and unbounded. All gods and deities are of late or secondary
origin (Ŗg Veda, Nasadiya Sukta 10:129). What is important here is the
view that holds continuity (Avyaya Bhava) and complimentarity in various
forms or manifestations of reality. It leads one to perceive unity in diversity
and seeing no contradiction between the opposites. Thus, though all later
thinkers derived their inspiration from the Vedas, they were open minded
and exercised freedom to interpret and elaborate the text(s) in different ways.
The Upanishads are not the thoughts of a single thinker; they evolved over
a period of time through scholarly discourses and contemplation. In the
Upanishads, the interest shifted from objective to the subjective, from outside
world to self in whose infinite depths the universe is reflected in its entirety.
The Upanishads give in some detail the path of the inner ascent, the inward
journey towards ultimate reality. The Upanishadic seers extended the tenets
of spirituality to the utmost bounds of human existence. The diversity of
ideas, concepts and visions encapsuled in the verses of the Upanishads has
inspired generations of thinkers and has laid the foundations of IP.
It may be mentioned in this context that the Vedic seers admitted in
all humility that their proposition of the creation was only a surmise,
for it is not possible to be sure of the events that occurred in the distant
past. They also conceded that the perfect and absolute cannot be known

through the imperfect human mind. What is known about life and existence
is therefore conjectural, logical and intuitive in most of the cases. Skepticism
and questioning is very much built-in in the mode of inquiry in the Ŗg Veda
itself. It is said of Indra, “Of whom they ask, where is he? Of him indeed
they also say, he is not.” (the Ŗg Veda II 12). Such doubts are frequently raised
throughout the classical texts and subsequently a whole system of inquiry
called the Nyāya was developed to ensure errorless thinking. Systematic
dialogue (Samvād ) has been a potent method of advancing understanding
about life and the universe. In the case of testing premises about self and
transcendental knowledge, self-verification by using first-person experiential
methods, like meditation, was considered to be the best option. This tradition
of questioning and free thinking provided impetus to IP for centuries, and
with many ups and downs, and setbacks it kept prospering till the recent
times. In what follows, we present a brief history of IP and then note the
changing perceptions of IP. We trace the disciplinary contours of IP and note
its distinguishing features. To clarify the nature of IP we then discuss what
is not the core of IP, before concluding the article.
Brief Historical Background
For the last 100 years of its existence, the contents and practices of teaching–
learning of psychology in India has been dominated by the Euro-American
tradition. The first department of psychology established at Calcutta University
in 1916 was a discipline imported from the West but was supposedly universal
in contents and theories. This incarnation of psychology was imbued with a
Western spirit of objective knowledge and other-oriented methodology. Even
after the political independence of India in 1947, psychology continued to
grow in the same institutional framework and learning paradigm with its
anchor deeply entrenched in behaviourist ideology. It has been alien in the
sense that the teaching was primarily in terms of sharing and propagating the
Euro-American principles and practices, rather than applying and linking to
social reality with an open mind. Though it did expand rapidly in the Indian
universities and institutes of higher learning and professional training, it
mainly served the purpose of substantiating and illustrating the principles of
Western scientific psychology taking Indian samples with little contribution
to the (supposedly universal) body of knowledge pool called psychology.
While some scholars did try to relate to Indian ethos and attended to explicate

indigenous sources of knowledge they did that privately, and the public
face projected in curriculum and teaching programme did not incorporate
that as legitimate and worthwhile. The idea of psychology and its preferred
way of categorisation and conceptualisation was held pre- or a-cultural and
culture was given no place in the constitution of psychological materials
or elements. For example, motives, drives, needs, perceptual learning and
various cognitive phenomena were kept separate from the cultural tradition.
The dynamics of creating a niche for a new discipline and the pressures to
form a identity amid physical science disciplines might have led to this. By the
mid-1970s, discontentment was brewing among some Indian psychologists
who cared for application and relevance of their efforts (Dalal, 1996). To
the vast majority, a psychology patterned after physical science model was
treated as intrinsically universal in which there was no scope for Indian or
for that matter any other non-Western perspective.
The trinity of materialism, quantification and objectivity of Western
psychology and commitment to the very goal of science to control and mani-
pulate others fascinated Indian psychologists. This ethos of a new science
of psychology was so captivating that most of the courses became immune
to the cultural context. For instance, the courses offered at Masters level
had a compulsory component of history of psychology but they were silent
about Indian contributions, nor was there any disciplinary engagement with
Indian culture and society but Greek, British, other European and American
philosophical contributions captured the entire space. Such a decontextual-
ised training could survive merely on the ground of metatheoretical sup-
positions of the universality of the basic principles of psychology, its way
of categorisation and understanding. It subscribed to a mechanistic and
reductionist framework supported by an empiricist methodology.
It may be noted that the growth of scientific psychology has resulted in
losing the essential constituents, such as psyche and consciousness, and making
the enterprise an empirical discipline, which is composed of things borrowed
from various disciplines and nothing of its own. As such psychology is so
disintegrated and fragmented that a meaningful definition of the discipline
is next to impossible. Today psychology is experiencing fragmentation and its
diverse applications make it contingent on variable contexts (Misra & Kumar,
in press). The illusion of developing grand empirically derived theories and
principles of human behaviour and action could not sustain for long. One
finds distinct changes in the academic scenario in the field of psychology
that have created avenues for an engagement with culture. The emergence
of cross-cultural, ethno, indigenous and cultural psychological approaches

brought into focus the significance of culture in understanding psycho-

logical processes. Also, the supremacy of physical science as the prototype of
inquiry into human affairs has been questioned by the philosophers of science
(Derrida, 1982; Foucault, 1977; Gergen, 1989). This has led to revision
of the nature of understanding of science and scientific enterprise. A related
development has been the increasing use of qualitative methods which rely
on subjectivity, human experience and a constructivist approach to human
understanding. These developments facilitated the emergence of a critical
look at the disciplinary affairs and various possibilities have emerged.
The realisations within the community of psychologists in India emanating
from self-reflection and growing discomfort with the limitations of academic
engagements within the received paradigm, at conceptual as well as societal
planes, led to nationwide reflection and debate among Indian psychologists.
The result was a distinct clamour to indigenise the prevailing Euro-American
discipline and to make it culturally sensitive. D. Sinha (1965) gave a call for
integration of modern psychology with Indian thought. Many significant
works involving critique and reconstruction have come out in the following
decades. Sinha’s writings (1981, 1986, 1997, 1998) persistently endeavoured
to make the point that psychology has to be culturally relevant and called
for indigenisation of the discipline. A large number of publications have
come out during this period critically reviewing the state of psychology in
India and urging psychologists to make it socially relevant and compatible
with the Indian ethos (Dalal, 1996; Gergen et al., 1996; Misra & Gergen,
1993; Misra & Mohanty, 2002; Misra et al., 1999; Pandey, 2001, 2004;
D. Sinha, 2000). Amid much confusion and lack of self-confidence the
move to articulate and nurture psychology with Indian concepts and theories
took considerable time in gathering momentum. However, these efforts to
rejuvenate psychology in the ancient texts intensified in the 1980s and 1990s.
Some notable publications of this period are by Paranjpe (1984, 1998),
Chakraborty (1995), Saraswathi (1999) and Rao (1988, 2002a, 2002b).
This stream has built not only on the interpretation of traditional concepts
and theories in contemporary idiom, but also on their integration within a
broader, global perspective. A comprehensive approach to IP involves issues
of justice and dana (Krishnan, 2005), poverty (Misra & Tripathi, 2004),
interpersonal relationship (Kakar & Kakar, 2007), organisational develop-
ment (Singh-Sengupta, 2001, creativity (Bhawuk, 2003), concept of self
(Bhawuk, 2005), pain and suffering (Anand, 2004, 2006), emotions and
affect (Bhawuk, 2008a; Jain, 2002; Misra, 2004, 2005; Paranjpe, 2009)

religious behaviour and devotion (Paranjpe, 2006) and peace and well being
(Bhawuk, 1999; Dalal & Misra, 2006; Kumar, 2004), to name just a few.
In more recent times, efforts to build IP as a vibrant discipline have in-
tensified. Several conferences (Puducherry, 2001, 2002, 2004; Kollam, 2001;
Delhi, 2002, 2003, 2007; Vishakhapatnam, 2002, 2003, 2006; Bengaluru,
2007) have given impetus to this movement of IP. The publication of the
Journal of Indian psychology since 1976, National Academy of Psychology
(NAOP) Conventions at Kanpur (2007) and Guahati (2008), refresher
courses in IP at Mysore, courses at IP Institute at Puducherry for the last four
years, publications, such as Misra and Mohanty’s Perspectives on Indigenous
Psychology (2002), Joshi and Cornelissen’s edited volume, Consciousness,
Indian Psychology and Yoga (2004); Rao and Marwaha’s Towards a Spiritual
Psychology (2005); Rao, Paranjpe and Dalal’s Handbook of Indian Psychology
(2008) has made rich source material on IP available.
The newly emerging psychology is rooted in traditional Indian thought
and practices that have existed at least for the last 2,500 years as a holistic
human science. The plurality of the Indian intellectual tradition and an ethos
of accommodating diverse thought systems extend immense opportunity
for creatively building a new psychology. As stated in the Pondy Manifesto
(Cornelissen, 2002), “Rich in content, sophisticated in its methods and valuable
in its applied aspects, Indian psychology is pregnant with possibilities for the birth
of new models in psychology that would have relevance not only for India but
also for psychology in general.” This manifesto signed by the delegates at the
IP conference at Puducherry was a landmark event in the history of IP.
It needs to be made explicit that the purpose of identifying, developing and
testing Indian concepts and theories is not to prove their intrinsic superiority.
It is a theoretical and methodological movement towards contemporising
Indian theories and testing their relevance for enhancing human potential,
enhancing well being and making this world a better place to live. It is
against this backdrop that IP is gearing itself to usher into a new era of many
exciting possibilities.
The Changing Perceptions of IP
Ostensibly, there is a change in attitude and perception of IP in the last

decade or so. That IP is growing in popularity among academic psychologists

as well as among practitioners is evident from the quantum of research and

professional activities in this field. Three factors that have contributed to this
change in attitudes towards and perceptions of IP are discussed here.
First, Western psychology has failed in dealing with the societal problems
that are faced by the people in non-Western world. It has increasingly been
realised that psychology driven by the positivist paradigm only provides a
fragmented and superficial account of human feelings, behaviour and the
dynamics of action of an isolated individual (Nandy, 1988). The growing
problems of social and family violence, mental ill health, moral decay, etc.,
have brought out the gross limitations of the mainstream Western psychology
to the Western scholars also. The concept of human being as epicentre of the
universe and container of myriads of psychological attributes (e.g., abilities,
motives, interests, goals, dispositions, cognitions, aptitudes) is flawed as it
does not capture the totality of existential context of life. The principles
thus derived were largely framed within a deficit model and ignored certain
important and affirmative human phenomena (e.g., religion, spirituality,
suffering, values, authenticity, creativity, love, collectivism, forgiveness),
which have emerged under the rubric of positive psychology (Snyder &
Lopez, 2002). As a movement within positivistic epistemological tradition,
positive psychology too is not equipped to handle inner, personal, cultural
and subjective aspects of life. These issues were either left unattended or
appropriated in a trivial fashion that made them less appealing.
It is interesting to note that the limitations of the practices of positivist
psychology were noted in the Western world too. For instance, Worchel and
Cooper (1989) had discussed the crisis in modern social psychology and
its limitations in dealing with the contemporary social problems. Humanistic
and transpersonal movements in the 1960s were largely protest movements
against scientism which is primarily concerned about control and pre-
diction, ignoring phenomenological perspective in psychological research
(Wertz, 1998). Modern psychotherapies too are going through a crisis of
identity and a debate is raging about their goals, philosophy and moral
vision (VandenBos, 1996). A need is felt to bring back spirituality and
religiosity in psychological research and theorisation (Bhawuk, 2003),
which was banished from psychology for about a century (see special issue
of the American Psychologist, January 2004). All these contemporary devel-
opments are in response to the acutely felt limitations of psychology developed
and practised within the framework of modern science. Modelled on the
mechanistic–reductionistic paradigm of physical sciences, Western psychology

is very restrictive in its assumptions about human nature and cannot deal
with larger human concerns. A rethinking has led to the emergence of new
perspectives and paradigms in psychology (i.e., in terms of feminism, social
constructionism, postmodernism) (Gergen 2007, 2009; Stanley, 1990),
which in certain ways bridges the gap between Eastern and Western under-
standing of human nature.
Second, there is growing popularity of Yoga and other spiritual systems
in the West. In the past few decades, more and more people with spiritual
training and experiences from India have been visiting other countries and have
acquired a large following. They have been responsible for disseminating the
Indian spiritual tradition. Among them, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Swami
Rama who have been able to draw the attention of academic psychologists
are prominent. Sri Aurobindo’s Integral Yoga and Integral Psychology have
attracted worldwide attention (Sri Aurobindo, The Integral Yoga, The Life
Divine in 2 volumes). Mahesh Yogi’s Transcendental Meditation (TM) went
through rigorous experimental testing at Harvard and other universities.
Swami Rama offered himself to extensive medical testing at the Menninger
Foundation Laboratory, New York, where he demonstrated many yogic
feats (Swami Ram et al., 1976). These Indian masters were able to demonstrate
convincingly the power of mind over body and have contributed significantly
towards evoking interest in the explication of Indian perspectives. The
presence of Ram Krishna Mission, Swami Narayan, Shivanand, Muktanand
and Sikh saints and many who settled in the West have also contributed to
generate interest in IP. Publications of Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Puducherry,
and the Himalayan International Institute for Yoga Sciences, Philosophy,
and Religion in Honesdale, Pennsylvania, founded by Swami Rama, are
valuable for their significant role in expounding the psychological insights
of Vedanta, Yoga, Samkhya and other systems of Indian thought. These
and many other accomplished spiritual masters of the Indian tradition have
played an important role in popularising IP across the globe (Paranjpe, 2006).
Mahatma Gandhi’s life and works have also inspired modern thinking on
peace, development and conflict resolution (Bondurant, 1965; Horsburgh,
1968; Pelton, 1974).
Though rooted in Indian scriptures and philosophical texts, IP does not
promote any religious faith, nor is it based on any particular metaphysics;
rather it has a quality that transcends all religious boundaries and does not
offend any faith or ideology. Various schools of thought within Indian

system cover the whole range of theistic and atheistic (for example, Sankhya
and Charvak) postulates of life. Also, IP has drawn not only from ideology
and scriptures of Hinduism but also from other schools of thought, including
Buddhism, Jainism and Sufism. Yoga and meditation, for example, are not
limited to any particular religious faith and can be tested and practised by
the people of all faiths anywhere. IP has much to offer in terms of self-
growth, independent of any specific religious tradition. How to liberate
human beings from the bondage of ignorance, suffering and to create a social
order of harmony, peace and personal growth constitute its major agenda.
A human being in such a conceptualisation is not merely an intelligent
live structure interested in survival and self growth. Instead he or she is an
active and responsible part (or partner) of nature and its growth and survival
are contingent upon the growth and survival of other co-inhabitants of this
universe. To this end one’s consciousness itself operates as a great asset. In
the West, interest in the study of altered states of consciousness since the
1960s and the founding of transpersonal psychology as a sub-discipline
encouraged psychologists to examine some of the indigenous perspectives. It
was recognised clearly that Western psychology has nothing to offer regarding
the spiritual/transcendental dimension of human nature, to understand others
or for self-realisation (Tart, 1975, 2009).
Third, with India emerging as a major economic power in the world,
there is a renewed interest in Indian thought systems, values and practices,
as well as in the strength and resilience of Indian society. Till the 17th and
18th centuries when India was one of the richest countries in the world,
European opinion about India was unequivocally positive. Indian philosophy,
mysticism, art and literature were looked upon with awe and appreciation.
It was in the later period when Indian civilisation was in decadence and
became impoverished due to colonisation, reducing India to one of the
poorest countries, that the Western indologists (Mccaulay 1835/1972,
James Mill1) started debunking Indian culture and philosophy for India’s
poverty and backwardness. Western scholarship had unique reading of
Indian culture that attributes India’s underdevelopment to the lack of traits
1
James Mill (1848), in an influential book on the history of British India, throughout referred
to Indians as “rude”, “lazy”, “timid”, “ignorant”, and “prone to flattery”. These claims to Hindu
inferiority and British superiority, as reflected in Mill’s (1848, republished by Atlantic Publishers,
London, 2007) work, were largely based on cultural and religious comparisons rather than on
racial or physiological differences.

and characteristics found in the industrialised Western societies. Thus, low

n-Ach (McClelland, 1961), dependence proneness (Doi, 1973), hierarchy
and relational orientation (Hofstede, 1980) were treated as negative at-
tributes. Interestingly the situation has changed in recent years. The same
Indian culture and its philosophy are now seen behind India’s economic
success. With Indian economy going from strength to strength and with
the visibility of Indian IT professionals at strategic locations worldwide, the
attitudes and perceptions about the Indian way of thinking have changed
(Varma, 2004). The number of courses taught in American and European
universities on Indian culture, philosophy, spirituality, art and music has
increased significantly. Indian research acquired greater respectability and is
now taken more seriously by the Western psychologists and as a consequence
(ironically), by Indian psychologists themselves.
The Disciplinary Contours
What is Indian in IP? In terms of field, content and methodology IP maintains

distinct position, which differs from the widely held assumptions of Western
psychology. Even when consciousness, mind and intuition are included as the
subject matter, IP stands as a body of knowledge rooted and pursued with
different ontological and epistemological premises. More than materialistic–
deterministic aspects of human existence, IP takes a more inclusive spiritual-
growth perspective on human existence. In this sense no clear distinction is
made between psychology, philosophy and spirituality,2 as conjointly they
constitute a comprehensive and practical knowledge or wisdom about human
life. Another point to be noted is that IP has originated and prospered in the
larger geographical region of Indian subcontinent and is compatible with
the cultural and social life of the people, it has, never been restricted to any
given region. It fashioned itself on an existential plane which aspired for the
upliftment of humanity in general instead of the people of Indian origin
only. IP thrived on protest movements, as Buddhism and Jainism were and
2
In this article, a distinction is made between spirituality and religion. Whereas religion
is an organised, institutionalised activity, spirituality is taken as an individual’s quest to know
own-self and to carve out their own path to liberation. This has created confusion in Western
psychology in which these two terms are used interchangeably. If we can replace religion with
spirituality, a synthesis of science and spirituality is a possibility.

also on other philosophies of the region, such as Zoroastrianism and Sufism.

Its influence in the ancient times was far beyond the borders of greater India,
Tibet, China, Japan and Korea and in the south up to Sri Lanka, Malaysia
and Indonesia. In the west, Afghanistan, Iran and up to middle Asia came
under its influence (Winternitz, 1927). IP was in communion with other
contemporary philosophies of the East, such as Tao, Zen Buddhism; and
this mutual influence is very much visible even today. They provided the
intellectual and spiritual firmament to generate new ideas and explanations
as evident in post-Upanishad texts (such as Shankar’s non-dualism). Theories
and practices of IP address wider existential issues and are relevant for the
humanity at large in an inclusive manner. Though the term “Indian Psy-
chology” implies a psychology of Indian origin, or a psychology that has
grown in the Indian subcontinent, it functions at a level of abstraction
which covers the humanity in general. It is only a coincidence that the term
Indian Psychology is used by the pioneers in this field, like Jadunath Sinha
who brought out three volumes entitled Indian Psychology (1933–1958),
Rhys Davids’s book, The Birth of Indian Psychology and its Development in
Buddhism (1936/1978), Raghunath Safaya’s Indian Psychology (1975) and
Kuppuswami’s book Elements of Ancient Indian Psychology (1985) . The latest
in this sequel is Handbook of Indian Psychology, an edited volume by Rao,
Paranjpe and Dalal (2008). The term IP has thus come to stay.
Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, although no clear distinction was made
between psychology and philosophy in the earlier times, IP is psychology,
not just pure philosophical exposition of truth and intellectual debates. It
is an applied and practical science which leads to testable hypotheses and
experimentation aiming at inner transformation. As a science of a multi-
layered being, comprising subtle inner being, physical being and social being
(Bhawuk, 2005, 2008a; Kumar, 2008); its propositions could not be tested
by the accepted empirical methods of inquiry alone but require a broad
spectrum of methodologies, calling for a wise and balanced deployment
of first person, second person and third person perspectives (Bhawuk,
2008b). The process of knowing is informed by an encompassing world
view and pattern of social life weaved with the threads of the Self and the
sacred/divinity. From this vantage point, IP is a living science, formulated,
tested, modified and contextualised in the course of challenges encountered
during struggles and tensions experienced in real life. It is an enterprise con-
cerning spiritual development with rich epistemological tradition. It grew
in tradition of critical examination where scholars and sages continuously

proposed, analysed, interpreted, refined and transmitted knowledge to the

worthy disciples. It is remarkable that these institutions survived all along
without much state support. Apparently IP is a complex field of knowledge
comprising philosophy (Darshana), life science (Āyurveda), principles of
personal and social conduct (Dharma Shāstra, Neeti, Artha Shāstra, Kāma
Shāstra), spirituality (Ādhyātma Vidyā), Jain and Buddhist scriptures, and
texts of various socio-spiritual movements. The Muslim influence, particularly
that of Sufism and Bahai, is also visible.
After centuries of unabated growth, the new educational policy in British
India in the nineteenth century brought forth a wholesale replacement of
Indian “knowledge-culture” by the Western, in the field of education par-
ticularly (Dharampal, 2000). When universities were established in India
on the British pattern, the concerns and contents of IP survived in some of
the philosophy departments. As Cornelissen (2003) has observed, as long
as philosophy and psychology were considered two sides of the same quest,
there were philosophy departments where psychologists could possibly have
access to the Indian tradition. But in the late 1950s when philosophy and
psychology departments separated in Indian universities, psychologists turned
en-mass toward Freud and behaviourism, and even this weak link was severed.
Psychology as a discipline confined itself to the analysis of the visible world
of concrete behaviour like any static, non living physical object that can be
measured and manipulated without any resistance.
The endogenous psychology, which underlines the contemporary relevance
of cultural heritage and native theories is what constitutes “IP”. The plurality
of Indian tradition and an ethos of accommodating diverse thought systems
(e.g., Vedānt, Sāmkhya,Yoga, Āyurveda, Mimānsa, Jainism, Buddhism,
Sufism, Sikhism) offer a gold mine for building a more comprehensive and
efficacious psychology. The precepts of IP encompass the entire range of
human concerns and it is not possible to enumerate all of them here. However,
as a point of departure from the accepted Western framework it seems in
order to briefly mention a select few of them.
1. The four Purusharthas (life pursuits), which are dharma (virtues and
rightful obligations/duty), artha (material prosperity), kāma (ful-
filment of desires) and moksha (liberation) cover the entire range of
human possibilities and strivings, irrespective of caste, creed or religion.
For a happy and fulfilling life these strivings should be pursued in
harmony with Dharma (social ethos). To this end it is held that the

pursuit of goals like artha and kāma have to be made compatible

with the requirements of dharma. Also, the idea of equanimity with
respect to life experiences, positive or negative, is a major learning in
the Bhagavad-Gita. Attachment with worldly objects and experiences
are purely temporary and are of binding nature. Attachment to them
ultimately destroys one’s life. The Bhagavad-Gita draws a temporal
sequence of mental events as: Attachment → Desire → Anger →
Mindlessness → Loss of memory → Loss of life (Bhawuk, 1999,
and also in this issue for a psychological model that captures these
ideas).
2. It studies consciousness in its multifaceted manifestations and retains
the core identity as a basic attribute. It recognises multilayered ex-
istence (Panch Koshas) of human being, which has the potential to
evolve and move towards higher levels of existence. The mere physical
level (Ānnamaya kosha) is the lowest level, and gradually through
other levels Prānamaya, Manomaya, Vijñanmaya, it goes to the level
of Ānandamaya Kosha. The true identity (Ātman) of sat-chit-ānand
entails the highest level of existence (for a synthesis of pancha kosha
and physical, social and metaphysical self, see Bhawuk 2008a). The
contingent and acquired identities/superimposed attributes (upādhis)
need not be confused with the core identity (Ātman) which remains
unaffected and functions as a witness (sākshi) (see Shankara in
Vivekchudamani verse 501). This is the reason why there has been an
emphasis on wise discrimination between permanent and impermanent
(Nityanitya Viveka). The apparent existence is often considered as
illusion (Māyā/Prakriti) within which normal life is carried. It is the
manifestation of the Ātman that is often given independent and greater
significance than Ātman because of misunderstanding (avidyā). This
avidyā is the main cause of attachments and consequent suffering. The
existence of the same Ātman in every human being offers a new way to
see the prospects of humanity that deemphasises the differences and
draws attention to the intrinsic oneness of the humanity. It furnishes
a rich ground for a spiritual psychology with Jiva (embodied Ātman)
as the functioning unit. Its deliberations aim at developing principles
that transform human beings for higher level of evolution.
The purpose of knowledge in traditional terminology, therefore,
is liberation (mukti) from various attachments and overcoming the
various kinds of suffering (kleshas) and ignorance. This, however, is not

“otherworldly” as the ideal personhood is to be Jivanmukta—living

a life with liberation. Expansion of identity for making it more
encompassing and inclusive is the core of learning in this thinking.
This implies that one must transcend the boundaries of ego since
ego is not the real/true identity of a person. Coming out of the grips
of egoistic attachments and engaging with non-egoistic or spiritual
pursuits is a proposition, which is worth considering in the context of
global challenge of sustainable development. Indian classical theories
provide insight into the crisis caused by competition, consumerism
and selfishness.
3. IP recognises the interplay of the manifest and unmanifest parts
of our existence in shaping the events in this world. This makes
room for going beyond strict determinism, accepting the emergent
nature of reality. It suggests plausible explanations and strategies to
deal with uncertainty. An important illustration of this is found in
terms of classification of human action (Karma) in terms of Sanchit
(accumulated) and Prārabdha (in-action) Karma. This classification
implies that human action/behaviour is an evolving process, one that
unfolds in the course of time. Also important is the idea of distributed
notion of locus of control. IP has also expanded the notion of causality
beyond self and non-self (internal–external) categories of perceived
causes. Any action depends on the contribution of five factors, i.e.,
kartā (agent), karma (action), adhisthāna (body), karana (instruments)
and daivam ( providence)—The Bhagavad-Gita (Ch. 18.14). The actor
is one of them and contributes just a part of the total. This is in contrast
to the usual categories of internal and external attribution, which lies
within the domain of egoistic self.
4. IP emphasises an organic view often explained in terms of the metaphor
of seed and tree. This implies that continuity and transformation are
inherent characteristics of life processes. In a major departure from
linear mode of thinking this metaphor underlines non-linear or cyclical
mode of life functioning. It also implies the significance of unmanifest
in shaping one’s life.
5. The human experience is complex and its study requires multiple
methods, including the third person, second person and first per-
son methods. IP is not opposed to empirical methods as pratyaksha
(perception) is one method (pramāna) accepted by all the schools of
Indian thought but it is certainly not sufficient, particularly when we

aim at both parā (self ) and aparā (empirical) vidyas (knowledge). Being
and knowing become one once we venture towards transcendental
realm. The empirical methods are not enough to address the entire
range of human experiences.
6. IP does not view human action as neutral, value free or a-moral. Instead
it brings out the essential interdependence and interconnectedness
of the worlds of human experience in which human beings are re-
sponsible players. At one level it proclaims essential unity and asserts
that self and non-self are identical in their constitution (i.e., yat pinde
tad brahmande). This expands the scope of a discourse on human
action.
7. While explaining human action, IP takes into account not only the
actor but also the linkages among the person, time and place. With
emphasis on dèsh (space), kāl (time) and pātra (participant/person) it
recognises the non-linear and emergent nature of action that defies
simple descriptions in terms of binary categories of cause and effect
(e.g., independent and dependent variables, predictors and criterion).
It is largely discursive and narrative, and cannot be reduced to simple
binary categories. It is supplemented by the position taken by one
Indian school of thought that assumes continuity between cause and
effect (satkarya vada). It is reflected in the principle of Karma held
by a vast majority of the Indians that refers to the sequence of actions
constituting cause and effect. Thus, actions necessarily entail certain
consequences. This scheme also empowers the actor to shape the
future course of events by engaging in a responsible action. One lives
life in obligational relationship (r.inās) with (guru, .rish, pitri, bhuta).
Life therefore is a kind of sacrifice (yajna), a sacrifice of one’s desires
and ego.
8. Instead of merely describing reality, IP emphasises on and promotes
self positive qualities through personal training and practice. The goal
of such training is to nurture a balanced personality, which primarily
involves sātvik, rājasic and tāmsik gunas or qualities. Interestingly
enough the objects in the surrounding environment also share these
three properties and finally transcend them. Therefore, the life style
should involve a harmonious relationship with one’s environment and
not by subjugating the environment. Such a relationship is mutually
supportive for person and environment and does not tax any one of
them. The Āyurveda talks of this harmony at the level of diet, action

and leisure to maintain health. Health is a state of balance (samatva)

and a healthy person is one who is self-anchored (swastha) in a world
of flux (samsār) with a body (sharira) that decays. It must be noted
that while everyone has all the three gunas, they exist in different
combinations leading to a state of (im)balance reflected in the choice
of actions and ensuring the health of mind, body and spirit. A dis-
tinction has also been made between godlike and demonic qualities
(daivi and asuri sampat) and it is recommended to evolve in the
direction of godlike qualities. One’s well being requires adhering to
a personal and social conduct rooted in virtuous life (sukhasya mulah
dharmah—Chanakya).
9. The aspiration for transcendental existence helps overcome the body-
centred egoistic strivings and offers a decentred view of self. It has
implications for work and social relationships. It allows one to be
motivated to treat work as a natural duty (dharma) to be performed
with reference to the demands of the location in one’s life space rather
than any extrinsic incentive. It is one’s humble contribution to the
worldly operations. Instead of emphasising on the outcome or reward
outside the work context, this kind of thinking promotes competence
in action as yoga (yogah karmasu kaushalam). Such competence re-
quires sustained and detached action (anasakti). As indicated earlier,
any action is made possible by several factors therefore attributing
causality to self is ignorance. A person is a mere instrument (nimitta)
of divinity and, therefore, it is heightened egotism, which assigns
personal causality.
Some Distinguishing Features of IP
Despite all diversity and distinctiveness, there are some features common
across all systems and schools relevant to IP. Some of these common features,
which give IP a distinct identity, are briefly discussed here.
IP is deemed to be a universal psychology. It cannot be subsumed under the
labels of indigenous, folk or cultural psychology, if that purports to delimit
the scope of psychological inquiry. For want of a new term it has been also
labelled as Greater Psychology (Dalal, 2000). The vast expanse of IP attends
to the perennial issues of human existence (e.g., human strivings, virtues,

self-understanding, self-control, Yoga, meditation, human conduct, pain,

misery, kleshas, happiness, bliss, health, well being, justice, morality, conflict)
which are not bound by any geographical region or time period. Centuries
back the sages and thinkers were raising questions and attempted to address
problems that are pertinent even today. In this sense, IP is both ancient
and contemporary at the same time. Indeed, the use of the term “Indian
psychology” is more of a convenience; may be a more appropriate term is
“psychology of Indian origin” (Rao, 2008). While the roots of IP are decidedly
Indian, it was never proposed as the psychology of the Indian people. For
instance, Buddhist psychology,3 which is an integral part of IP, flourished in
Sri Lanka, Tibet and Japan among other countries. Most of these theories are
propounded as trans-historical, dealing with the intrinsic state and ways to
enhance the human potential. It can be mentioned in this context that the
teachings and training in IP are not intended for any particular class, caste or
creed, but people from all strata of the society can make themselves worthy
of these pursuits (Radhakrishnan, 1953). Contrary to the misperception that
traditional wisdom is accessible to men or Brahmins only, many women and
non-Brahmins have attained the highest level of knowledge. The declaration
“aham bramhāsmi” (I am brahman) is always followed by the phrase “tat
tvam asi” (you are the same), which refers not only to all mankind but also
to all living beings.
Another important feature of IP is that it primarily deals with the inner
states of a person, taking consciousness as the primary subject matter of study.
Instead of emphasising numerous contingent and non-contingent variations
in acquired role-related behaviour, the stress is on unchanging identity. In the
Upanişads consciousness as a state of being is not an object but is conceived
as undifferentiated subjectivity (Chit) without any content (Radhakrishnan,
1953). In the Indian tradition, consciousness happens to be the ground con-
dition without which no reality is conceivable. It is the knowledge side of the
universe, more than being a light source for apprehending sensations. The
Chandogya Upanishad expounds four states of consciousness—waking, dream,
deep sleep and turia (illumined), the most desirable one being the last one.
When the mind withdraws itself from participation in sensory processes by
deliberate intent and empties itself of all content, it would be the illumined
3
It may be interesting to note that the term Buddhist Psychology was first used in the
translation of Buddhist texts by British Indologists. Goleman expressed it as follows, “It was
news that Buddhism—like many of the world’s great spiritual traditions—harbored a theory
of mind and its workings” (2004, p. 72).

state of consciousness. When this happens there arises unmediated direct

knowledge, characterising knowing by being. It involves identity with existence
and its knowledge. As the Upanishadic saying goes, “to know Brahman is
to be Brahman” (The Mundaka Upanishad III 3.2.9). Buddhism refers to
the stream of consciousness as the basis of subjective feeling of continuity
and identity which affects our perceptions, thoughts, actions and emotions.
While formulating five modes of knowing in Buddhism the focus has been
on inner transformation, with the ultimate goal being liberation (Premasiri,
2008). The five modes of knowing are: sensory, extra-sensory, holistic, in-
sightful and ethical. According to Buddhism, the knowing should not be
based on authority, faith, belief or speculation, but on personal experience.
Sensory experiences leading to phenomenal awareness are intentional,
i.e., they are of objects. Distortions in this case are due to active interference
of mind and body, which limits our awareness, and obscures our know-
ledge and feelings. The goal of life is to attain a state of pure consciousness
where knowledge is direct, immediate and intuitive, and not mediated
by sensory inputs. Human consciousness is considered hierarchical, the
highest state being that of truth, pure consciousness and bliss (Sat, Chit
and Anand ). Yoga and meditation are the processes for movement towards
this transcendental state of pure consciousness. The engagement with pure
consciousness makes IP transcendental in its orientation. Transcendence is a
movement from mundane to sublime, from sensory to intuitive and from self
(ego) to Self (enlightened). It is a psychological process of rising from narrow,
personal reference of a problem that causes suffering to a transpersonal, holistic
understanding, wherein the problem loses its sting. The transcendental view
implies a position of self (ego)—decentring and taking into consideration
the whole range of progression in past, present and future. It draws attention
to non-egoistic and non-body centred encompassing vision of life and its
processes. It enlarges or expands one’s identity to incorporate others or
anything or everything that exists (Self or all encompassing Brahman!).
The Upanishadic Mahavakyas (great sentences) like Aham Brahmasmi (I am
Brahman) or Sarvam khalvidam Brahman (Everything is only Brahman)
emphasise the value of ever expanding and inclusive identity. It sets the
stage of an evolutionary journey in which the division of self and other or
I/Me and you/they becomes meaningless as there is no other except one single
I or Brahman. Transcendence, therefore, transforms the person in totality and
engages in a sincere seeking of higher order truth. Transcendence and state of
pure consciousness are held as attainable experiential realities, giving one a

sense of freedom and liberation. Both transcendence and spirituality are as-
pects of the same reality and share this common pursuit. Spirituality furthers
development of comprehensive theories of human existence to understand
creativity, intuitive thinking and extraordinary achievements (Bhawuk,
2003). Spirituality however goes with the sacred and divine, as Indian
thought does not maintain any dichotomy between science and spirituality.
They are grounded in the experiences of many and are attainable for anyone
who follows systematic procedures and practices. Though transcendence
and spirituality are at the core of most of the Indian theories, these are not
bound by any particular faith or ism, and serve to provide a secular account
of human nature.
IP is based on veridical methods. It should be clear that as a human science
of consciousness its methods are ought to be different from the methods of
natural/physical/material sciences. This, however, does not make it a less
stringent science. Methods of observation and experimentation have also
evolved to study the inner functioning of a person. In these methods of self-
observation, no distinction is made between experience and observation,
where true knowledge is not considered as abstract and impersonal but as
realisation of one’s being (Rao, 2008). There are methods of direct observation
(e.g., intuition) in contrast to methods that rely on sensory and mental
mediation. These methods rely on the blending of first person and second
person perspectives (collective). Taken together, these two perspectives
allow personal, subjective and non-relational verification and in-group
inter-subjective validity. These methods work well within Guru (second
person)–Shisya or pupil (first person) methodologies.
Needless to say the methods of Yoga and meditation have been used for
centuries to test, experiment and experiential validation of the higher mental
states. The various systems of yoga in India have developed rigorous and
effective methods of enquiry in the domains of consciousness studies and
psychology that may help us to find answers to our deepest questions re-
garding values, truth, love, meaning and beauty. They can offer to modern
science not only a wealth of philosophical and psychological theories, but
also a rich store of practical techniques to raise our individual and collective
levels of consciousness.
It is relevant to mention here that in the Indian tradition a distinction is
made between parā vidya (knowledge of the Self ) and a-parā vidya (empirical
knowledge). A-parā vidya constitutes the knowledge of social-physical world
we live in and includes science and technology. This knowledge is also

relevant to the problems and challenges of the world we live in. The methods
of knowing in the empirical world (pramāna) are diverse and treat mind
(mānas or antahkaran) as one sensory channel, which allows the understanding
of pleasure and pain. They include methods such as perception (pratyksha),
inference (anumāna), comparison (upamāna), verbal testimony (sabda),
attribution of meaning (arthapatti) and historicity (aitihya). The system of
Vedanta proposes methods of sravana, manana and nididhyāsana, which
correspond to sense-based knowledge, intellect-based knowledge and intuitive
knowledge, respectively (Rao, 2008).
IP is applied in its nature and objectives. It is not just concerned about
testing theoretical positions or engaging in speculative metaphysical inquiry.
It raises important questions about the ideal state of being and deals with the
methods one can follow to attain that state. It discusses the practices through
which people can transform their own lives to attain perfection, and thereby
change the world they live in. The goal of IP is to help a person move from a
conditioned state (mechanical and habitual thinking and responding) to an
unconditioned state of freedom and liberation. This transformation, in more
mundane terms, implies becoming more objective, discretionary, equipoise
and aware about the potential sources of distortion. IP extensively deals with
the ways of handling human suffering and leads one on a path of growth,
which does not create any hurdle for other co-travellers. The techniques of
yoga and meditation have contributed significantly towards self control of
mind and feelings. Such techniques are diverse to suit people of various ori-
entations. Thus, Bhakti (devotion), Karma (action) or Jnana (knowledge lead-
ing to renunciation) yoga can be used by any person depending upon his or
her temperament or dispositional orientation (svabhāva) (see Bhawuk’s article
on methodology in this issue). The theories and practices of Āyurveda are
fine examples of how the mundane can be blended with the transcendental.
The plurality in constitution, action and context is enunciated with the help
of the theory of trigunas of sattva, rajas and tamas.
However, it should not be misconstrued that IP is only concerned with
inner transformation and does not deal with the mundane problems of this
world. It has a vision of a social order in which conflict, violence, injustice
and exploitation have no place. It offers mechanisms to address the problems
arising from human greed, attachment and egotism, which culminate in
poverty, injustice and pain. IP is equally concerned with the challenges of
education, mental and physical health, and social institutions and have offered
alternative models and methods. IP does not dismiss the empirical approach in

these areas but by being positioned at an appropriate level provides a broader

perspective within which its findings would make sense.
What is Not the Core of Indian Psychology?
As mentioned earlier, a distinction is generally made between Indian Psychology

(Psychology of Indian origin) and Psychology in India (academic/western
psychology in India), though there is some overlap in the usage of these two
terms. Part of the problem stems from the fact that in other social sciences
such a distinction is of little consequence. For example, Indian sociology or
Indian philosophy is same as sociology or philosophy in India. These terms
were coined by the British scholars who were engaged in studying Indian
society and philosophy in the later part of the eighteenth century. Moreover,
Indian sociology and Indian Philosophy as academic disciplines have a long
history of more than 150 years and there is no misconception about their
subject matter. This is not so in the case of IP. Psychology in India has a history
that spans the beginning of the last century, but in comparison IP has yet
to re-establish itself in the academic portals. Psychological knowledge has
a long tradition and a clear identity as an independent field of inquiry. As
mentioned earlier, though there were writings in this area for many decades,
it has emerged as a domain of serious research in academia only in the last
decade or so. We still do not have any critical historical document about
the beginning and growth of IP, though we have many writings in the case
of psychology in India. Another reason for confusion about the usage of
the terms is that courses on IP were introduced in many Indian universities
(e.g., BHU, Mysore, Jodhpur, Andhra Universities) in the mid-1960s. These
courses were primarily imported from philosophy and their subject matter
and pedagogy were incompatible with the general ethos of psychology de-
partments, which was more tuned to laboratory research. Courses on IP
therefore could not survive for long and within a decade they were withdrawn
from most of the places. Incidentally, the view still persists that IP is nothing
but Indian Philosophy. This is yet another reason why IP is not part of the
academic curriculum at most of the Indian universities.
In this backdrop it is quite natural to encounter many misconceptions
about what IP stands for, or does not stand for. To define IP as psychological
knowledge rooted in Indian cultural heritage and scriptures dating back to more

than three millennia and relevant to the contemporary world is not enough.
As a growing science of Indian origin, IP is often held as a conglomeration
of several, sometimes even contradictory fields of investigation. IP maintains
its distinct assumptions about ontology, epistemology and content. To arrive
at some clarity about the subject matter of IP there is a need to engage in a
dialogue about “what constitutes IP and what does not”. We have already
discussed what IP is; next we propose to discuss what IP possibly is not.
IP is Not Just a Psychology of Indian People
Due to common historical, social and cultural background, it is natural that

Indian people share many dispositional and behavioural characteristics. On
the very grounds, Indian people would differ from Americans, Chinese or
any other ethnic group. Study of these cultural differences has been a very
productive area of research in cross-cultural psychology. Being primarily a
methodological field, cross-cultural psychology has taken the etic approach
to establish equivalence of psychological phenomena for cross-cultural com-
parisons (Berry, 1989). On the other side, there is the emic approach which
is employed when culture-specific phenomena are investigated. Gergen et al.,
(1996, p. 501) stated, “Cross-cultural psychologists were unable to abandon
mainstream scientism in general and remain loyal to empiricism and test
western theories with ‘culturally’ (i.e., geographically) diverse data.”
Both cross-cultural psychology and cultural psychology have examined
how Indian people differ from other cultural groups. The findings are often
empirical generalisations and tend to make sweeping statements about the
populations under investigation. Given India’s vast ethnic diversity, these
studies often fail to unravel enduring patterns and differences. Such research
often ends up creating stereotypes about cultural groups. A good example is
the debate about collectivism–individualism, in which countries are put in
these two dichotomous categories (Triandis, 1984). As J.B.P. Sinha (2000b)
has argued individualism–collectivism is a matter of sampling situations or
persons and involves co-existing orientations (Sinha & Tripathi, 1994). In
the absence of theoretical advancement and cultural constructs to interpret
the results, such findings often remain tentative. Making such comparisons
and cataloguing psycho-social, emotional and dispositional characteristics
of the Indian people have been attempted in many studies. Kakar’s work on

Indian psyche (Kakar, 1996; Kakar & Kakar, 2007) is a case in point in which
the psychoanalytic framework has been used to interpret the findings. Such
studies are at best tentative—interpretable only within a space–time matrix.
On the other hand, IP endeavours to identify enduring human attributes
and help people discover their essential nature and their relationship with
the transcendental. IP strives to unravel a-temporal and trans-cultural models
of human ontology.
IP is Not Indigenous Psychology
D. Sinha (1996) has reminded us about two types of indigenisation. The

first is an outcome of adaptation of the mainstream (Western) psychology
to a different cultural setup. This adaptation is along the lines argued by
John Adair (1989). A large body of research in India can be included in this
kind of indigenisation in which cultural concepts and practices are examined
employing Western theories and approaches. A large number of Western
tests of personality, intelligence, motives, values, health and well being are
indigenised taking this approach. Such indigenisation is likely to continue
in a global world where there is a constant flow of models and concepts
across cultures, particularly from the west. The other kind of indigenisation
is that which is based on a systematic analysis of culture-bound concepts and
categories. Such indigenisation focuses on the contemporary relevance of
cultural heritage and native theories which comes within the rubric of “IP”.
Misra and Mohanty’s volume (2002) Perspectives on Indigenous Psychology
includes Indian research that belongs to both the categories. Srivastava
and Misra (2007) have undertaken the study of intelligence which is an
example of the second kind of indigenisation. They use multiple sources, i.e.,
traditional texts, popular idioms and lay people’s understanding and usage to
develop a new model of intelligence. Indigenous psychology, in this sense, is
synonymous to folk psychology, a disciplinary knowledge that has evolved
in a particular societal context, which is used by lay people to organise the
conduct of their lives.
Many psychologists believe that “Indigenous psychologies” is a more apt
term in this context. The plural term takes in its fold tribal, subaltern and
other communities that differ in their history, beliefs and social practices.
Indigenous psychologies offer models and theories that can enrich our
understanding of human psychology across cultures. Not acknowledging it

is akin to conceding to the position of Western psychologists that only they

are developing universal theories, others are special cases of their theories.
IP is more than such indigenous (or folk) psychologies for the reason that
it offers psychological models and theories, derived from classical Indian
thought, that hold promise of panhuman interest.
IP is Not Faith Psychology
It is argued that science builds on doubting and questioning. It is part of

the training of a scientist to be a skeptic and question the veracity of the
existing findings, i.e., not to accept anything unless it is empirically tested.
Faith has no place in scientific diction, “when you observe you trust”. IP
takes a position that its reverse is also true: “when you trust you observe”.
For example, when you trust that there is an observer ( purusha) inside you
who is watching everything you tend to experience it. Similar is the case of
the sixth sense; when you believe in its existence, then you notice it. This is
how faith works.
It can be argued that all scientific theories have some basic assumptions
at the core. There is no inquiry that is not based on some assumptions.
Western science (psychology in particular) has also built on a long tradition of
socio-religious beliefs and practices. These assumptions are never questioned
but without understanding them many theories would make no sense. For
example, hedonism (that man seeks pleasure and avoids pain) is at the core of
many social learning theories. Any assumptions can be held as a statement of
faith and the two terms have the same connotation for research. Assumptions
lead to metaphors, which determine the methodology to be employed and
conclusions to be drawn. The behaviouristic psychology considered man as a
machine, which suited its mechanistic models of learning and behaviour. The
metaphor of the “man as computer” changed the concerns and methodology
of research, taking the human being as information processor. Similarly, the
“man as soul” metaphor holds human being as capable of rising above their
physical limitations and attaining their transcendental state. Within this
framework, the Bhagavad-Gita propositions based on this metaphor in IP
should be testable and experientially verifiable. The “Man as soul” metaphor
calls for a different ontological and epistemological position in formulation of
research questions but it certainly does not render IP as faith psychology.

IP is Not Otherworldly
IP is not obsessed with otherworldly matters as it is often misunderstood. It

does transcend the boundaries of the mundane and does not draw a rigid line
between the physical and metaphysical. But still the life after life is not the
subject matter of IP, nor is it a discourse on metaphysics. The primary focus
is on how people can lead a purposeful and wholesome life. Both parā-vidyā
(knowledge of the Self) and a-parā vidyā (empirical knowledge) are considered
necessary to live a harmonious life in this world. Even transcendence, which
is often taken in an otherworldly sense, has worldly aspects. In mundane
terms, it signifies transformation of an individual such that one is able to
know the truth, become objective by freeing oneself from biases and mental
conditioning. In this sense, transcendence implies overcoming the existential
constraints of one’s mind–body complex (Rao, 2008). It is always considered
possible to attain the highest state of consciousness (turiā) in this life itself.
Self-growth is a major objective of IP but not in an otherworldly sense. IP
deals with existential issues here and now even though it sees the relevance
of the past experience for the present condition and the consequences of
the present situation for the future, keeping open all possibilities without
foreclosing any in haste. IP recognises that physical processes influence
mental functions, but it also stresses that mental functions influence bodily
processes. It emphasises the integral connection between consciousness, mind
and body. Therefore, neurophysiological studies are not considered irrelevant
to IP, but are regarded as insufficient to give us a complete understanding
of human nature.
IP is Not a Prescriptive Science
All social and psychological theories are shaped by the cultural firmament.
The values, priorities and ethics of that culture provide the ingredients on
which these theories are built and sustained. No social science can thus be
prescription-free. Many of these prescriptions could be implicit in hypotheses,
designs and interpretations of the findings. For example, an innocuous
experiment of Asch (1951) on social conformity in which the effect of peer
pressure upon modification and distortion of judgement on a perceptual task
was studied. Asch demonstrated that when there is group pressure (other
members are deliberately making wrong judgements) the subject tends to
make distorted judgements. His work apart from demonstrating social

conformity has a clear message that conformity is bad as it results in wrong

judgements. Western theories are the product of a value system of individu-
alism, capitalism and materialism as IP is a product of Indian value system
of idealising another social order. IP which grew in a different historical
and cultural context is also a prescriptive science, having a vision of an ideal
society and an ideal person. Accordingly, the methods that are developed
are also designed to attain that desirable state. Keeping that in view, IP is
sacred and spiritual, yet endorses a secular cultural ethos that highly values
a transcendental state of being. The goal of Indian self-psychology is to
examine one’s state of consciousness and understand the metamorphosis
that one goes through.
Notwithstanding, IP is as descriptive and confirmatory as any other social
science could be, it has evolved a well laid out methodology to test and
describe human conditions and conditioning. It has sophisticated theories
of mind and consciousness that are based on intersubjective validations.
The process of understanding the reality, which is not mediated by sensory
inputs or the conditioned mind, gives rise to the ultimate knowledge.
This knowledge transcends, according to IP, the prescriptive–descriptive
dichotomy, as well as all language barriers, as one understands the truth at a
direct intuitive and experiential level.
IP is Not Just a Study of Ancient Wisdom
IP is not merely a historical documentation of the ancient Indian wisdom.

Scriptures dating back thousands of years are, of course, a vast treasure-
house of wisdom that has remained hidden and inaccessible to academic
psychology. As academic psychology in India has begun to explore this
symbolic and conceptual resource, it has opened up varied possibilities of
exciting research propositions. It may be relevant to add in this context that
this ancient knowledge has been extended, elaborated, even questioned in the
long history. Thinkers and sages of modern times have added and commented
on what we know from Vedas, Upanishads and different schools of thought.
Sri Aurobindo, Ramakrishna, Krishnamurthi, Gandhi are names of a few
modern thinkers who have vastly contributed to this ancient wisdom and
have been able to present it in a language, which we understand.
IP is not revivalist, if revivalism means reassertion of the ancient order
in the present world. It cannot be an exercise to reconfirm the theories pro-
pounded in the ancient texts through scientific methodology, nor does it

aim to establish its superiority over other knowledge systems. The challenge
before IP is to carve out the core of this ancient wisdom and develop test-
able propositions. The study of ancient human science is not merely an
academic exercise but it aims to transform self and build a happy, healthy and
harmonious social order. IP is part of a movement toward contemporising
Indian theories and testing their relevance for enhancing human competencies
and well being. It is the a-temporal nature of IP and its proximity to our
essential human nature across ages and geographies that sustain its appeal
in the modern times.
IP is Not a Distinct Branch of Psychology
It may be posited here that IP does not aspire to be a distinct branch of

psychology, like social, personality, clinical and the like. Confining IP to
a specific content domain will do injustice to its vast potential and may
deprive psychology of its diversity and richness. IP covers the whole range
of human possibilities and, therefore, as a school of thought has relevance
for all branches of psychology. It creates new possibilities of looking at
the age-old human problems of social conflicts and violence, emotional and
mental health, human greed and need for individual growth.
Should IP be bracketed with other cultural psychologies, like Chicano
Psychology, Chinese Psychology, African Psychology, Filipino Psychology,
etc.? It may eventually put it in an absurd situation in which there are a
plethora of psychologies competing with each other for recognition. As
discussed earlier, IP is not conceived as the psychology of Indian people,
as many other cultural psychologies are. Second, IP spills over to all other
branches of psychology and as a holistic field covers the entire psychology
tree, be it health, social, mental health, organisational or any other branch.
It is concern about human growth and welfare to which other psychologies
can equally contribute.
Summary and Conclusion
IP is as old as the Indian civilisation but its history as a modern discipline is

also as old as that of the Western psychology in India. The new beginning
of IP in the modern times can be traced in the work of Swami Vivekananda,

Ramana Maharishi and Sri Aurobindo in the early part of the last century.
Subsequently, the monumental work of Jadunath Sinha (1958) on IP, a
compilation of psychological concepts and theories in scriptures and other
ancient texts, laid its firm foundation. However, it took much longer time
for IP research to build up. It is only in the last decade or so that research in
this area has picked up momentum and many important publications have
come out. Looking at the plethora of research and publication activities going
on at present, it is likely that IP will have a critical mass sooner than later. As
discussed earlier, it is a misnomer that Western psychology is universal and IP
is not. IP is neither competing nor striving to replace Western psychology as
universal science. It only intends to offer an alternative perspective. Whereas
Western science has focused on the human problematic, IP primarily looks at
the growth aspects, i.e., on how human beings can actualise their full potential
and can free themselves from their mental conditioning. In this sense, Western
psychology and IP can complement each other by bringing into the fold of
research a whole range of human possibilities. It is in this respect that IP
claims its legitimate place in a truly global mainstream psychology.
However, despite all possibilities and provocations, IP is still struggling
to make inroads into the academic citadels of Indian universities. There are
hardly a few places where courses on IP are being taught, and there is still a
good deal of resistance to the introduction of IP into teaching programmes.
Ostensibly, a larger body of Indian psychologists is still wary of the nature
and agenda of IP. There are wide ranges of apprehensions which have stalled
the acceptance of a psychology of Indian origin. Some such misconceptions
are briefly noted here.
First, Indian theories of mind and consciousness are often held to be
subjective and not amenable to scientific testing. Consequently, IP is con-
sidered as not amenable to empirical research using the established scientific
methodology. As such, IP is considered a regressive step, which may reduce
the science of psychology to a non-scientific enterprise. Second, the bulk of
Indian psychologists are concerned about keeping pace with advancements
in empirical research methodology and statistical techniques, which give psy-
chology the status of a highly sophisticated scientific enterprise among all
social sciences. Indian psychologists are trained in positivistic methods and are
more at ease in employing them. Third, scientifically minded psychologists
still consider IP as part of a religious (worse, revivalist) movement. Many are
of the view that the subject matter of IP is esoteric, mystical and metaphysical.
Therefore, there is an anxiety that including IP in the academic curriculum

would undermine the secular credentials of their scientific pursuits; that

such a move may offend the sensibilities of the scientists of other faiths.
Fourth, working within the domain of IP will cut them off from the rest of
the world and may label them as being parochial or ethnocentric. This may
deprive their research wider trans-national recognition and may foreclose
the possibilities of international collaboration and support. In fact, many
yoga research institutes like SVYASA, Bangalore, are getting international
attention on par with the best research institutes in the world. Lastly, there
is a practical reason for sticking to Western psychology in academia. There
is no tangible incentive to the academic community to change their areas of
specialisation. It may be more rewarding to do research, for example, in the
area of emotional intelligence than, say, detachment. IP requires sustained
efforts to re-educate themselves, which is hard without peer support, reading
material and training programmes. Nandy (1995) has argued that conducting
experiments, developing and adapting psychological tests, mindlessly
replicating Western research is what has kept Indian psychologists occupied
without any clarity of purpose. These Indian psychologists are often aware
that the psychology they are pursuing does not address the real issues of
change and development, both at social and individual level. They know
that no in-depth analysis of the socio-psychological problems of Indian
society will yield from this endeavour. A discontentment is brewing among
the psychology fraternity about the state of psychology in India. An urgent
need is felt to reorchestrate the processes of teaching, training and research
in psychology with an open mind and cultural sensibility.
Despite all resistance and setbacks, the IP movement seems to be gathering
momentum if attendance at IP conferences, workshops and research pub-
lications is taken as an index. There is a good deal of excitement and sense
of purpose in the section of psychologists who are pursuing IP. It can be
easily discerned that this newly emerging science of IP calls for a paradigm
shift. We need a serious and sustained debate on nature, characteristics
and implication of this new paradigm. A dominant view is that the Western
and the Indian paradigms are irreconcilable and cannot have a meeting
ground. Indian concepts and theories are grounded in different notions of the
human nature, epistemology, values and world view, than the Western ones.
However, the range of problems suggests the need for both the paradigms.
Whereas the methodology of Western psychology focuses on the study of
the “other” person, IP (as other Eastern psychologies) focuses on the study of
one’s “own-self ”. We need both first person and third person approaches to

bring about the desired changes in human condition. IP’s experiential basis of
knowledge generation is common to the theories and practices of many other
Eastern philosophies, including Zen, Tao and Buddhism. The proponents
of this position hold that building a more harmonious and conflict-free
world order where people are able to actualise their inner potential can be a
valid goal. It is hoped that turning towards IP would help the discipline by
expanding the scope of psychological inquiry and offering technologies for
self-transformation leading to a better quality of life.
REFERENCES
Adair, J.G. (1989). Indigenous developments in Indian psychology: A quantitative assessment.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association,
Halifax, Nova Scotia.
American Psychologist (January 2004). Special issue on Health and Spirituality/Religion.
Anand, J. (2004). Working through emotional pain: A narrative study of the healing process.
Psychological Studies, 49, 185–192.
Anand, J. (2006). Toward a conceptual formulation of psychological healing. Psychological
Studies, 51(2), 119–125.
Asch, S.E. (1951). Effect of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment.
In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh: Carnegie.
Basham, A.L. (1954). The wonder that was India. New York: Grove Press.
Berry, J.W. (1989). Imposed etics-emics-derived etics: The operationalization of a compelling
idea. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 721–735.
Bhawuk, D.P.S. (1999). Who attains peace: An Indian Model of Personal Harmony. Indian
Psychological Review, 52(2 & 3), 40–48.
Bhawuk, D.P.S. (2003). Culture’s influence on creativity: The case of Indian spirituality.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(1), 1–22.
Bhawuk, D.P.S. (2005). A model of self, work, and spirituality from the Bhagavad-Gita:
Implications for self-efficacy, goal setting, and global psychology. In K. Ramakrishna Rao
and Sonali B. Marwaha (Eds), Toward a spiritual psychology: Essays in Indian psychology
(pp. 41–71). New Delhi, India: Samvad India Foundation.
Bhawuk, D.P.S. (2008a) Anchoring cognition, emotion, and behaviour in desire: A model from
the Bhagavad-Gita. In K.R. Rao, A.C. Paranjpe, & A.K. Dalal (Eds), Handbook of Indian
Psychology (pp. 390–413). New Delhi, India: Cambridge University Press.
Bhawuk, D.P.S. (2008b). Science of culture and culture of science: Worldview and choice of
conceptual models and methodology. The social engineer, 11(2), 26–43.
Bondurant, J.V. (1965). Conquest of violence: The Gandhian philosophy of conflict. Berkeley
and Los Angles: University of California Press.
Chakraborty, S.K. (1995). Ethics in management: Vedantic perspectives. Delhi: Oxford
University Press.

Cornelissen, M. (2002). Pondicherry Manifesto of psychology. Psychological Studies, 47,

168–169.
Cornelissen, M. (2003). Indian psychology series–vol. 2: A short note to initiate the discussion.
Indian Psychology Book Meeting held at the Park, Visakhapatnam from 7 to 8 December
2003.
Cornelissen, M. (2004). The farther reaches of human identity an exploration based on the
work of Sri Aurobindo. Psychological Studies, 50, 226–232.
Dalal, A.K. (1996). A science in search of its identity: Twentieth Century psychology in India.
Indian Psychological Abstracts and Reviews, 4, 1–41.
Dalal, A.K. (2002). Psychology in India: A historical introduction. In G. Misra & A.K. Mohanty
(Eds), Perspectives on indigenous psychology (pp. 79–107). New Delhi: Concept.
Dalal, A.K., & Misra, G. (2006). Psychology of health and well-being: Some emerging
perspectives. Psychological Studies, 51(2–3), 91–104.
Dalal, A.S. (2000). Greater Psychology. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram.
Davids, C.A.F.R. (1936/1978). The birth of Indian psychology and its development in Buddhism.
Munshiram Manoharlal Publications, reprint Oriental Books.
Derrida, J. (1982). Margins of philosophy. (A. Boss, Trans.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Dharampal. (2000). The Beautiful Tree: Indigenous Indian education in the Eighteenth Century.
Mapusa: The Other India Press.
Doi, T. (1973). The anatomy of dependence. Tokyo: Kodansha International.
Foucault, M. (1977). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock.
Gergen, K.J. (1989). Social psychology and the wrong revolution. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 19, 463–484.
Gergen, K.J. (2007). An invitation to social construction. London: SAGE Publications.
Gergen, K.J. (2009). Relational being. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gergen, K.J., Gulerce, A., Lock, A., & Misra, G. (1996). Psychological science in cultural
context. American Psychologist, 51, 496–503.
Goleman, D. (2004). Destructive Emotions: A Scientific Dialogue with the Dalai Lama. NY:
Bantam Dell.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
Horsburgh, H.J.N. (1968). Non-violence and aggression: A study of Gandhi’s moral equivalent
of war. London: Oxford University Press.
Jain, U. (2002). An Indian perspective on emotions. In G. Misra & A.K. Mohanty (Eds),
Perspectives on Indian psychology (pp. 281–291). New Delhi: Concept.
Joshi K., & Cornellisen, M. (2004). Consciousness, Indian psychology and yoga. New Delhi:
Centre for Studies in Civilizations.
Kakar, S. (1996). The Indian psyche. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Kakar, S., & Kakar, K. (2007). The Indians: Portrait of a people. New Delhi: Penguin Books.
Krishnan, L. (2005). Concepts of social behavior in India: Daan and distributive justice.
Psychological Studies, 50(1), 21–31.
Kumar, S.K.K. (2004). Perspectives on well-being in the Indian tradition. Journal of Indian
Psychology, 22(2), 18–31.
Kumar, S.K.K. (2008). Indian thought and tradition: A psycho-historical perspective. In
K.R. Rao, A.C. Paranjpe & A.K. Dalal (Eds), Handbook of Indian Psychology (pp. 19–52).
New Delhi: Cambridge University Press.

Kuppuswami, B. (1985). Elements of ancient Indian psychology. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing
House.
Macaulay, T.B. (1835/1972). Minute on Indian education. In T.B. Macaulay, Selected writings
(pp. 237–251). J. Clive & T. Pinney (Eds). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original
“minute” presented in 1835).
McClelland, D.C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton: Van Nostrand.
Menon, S. (2005). What is Indian psychology: Transcendence in and while thinking. Journal
of Transpersonal psychology, 37(2), 83–89.
Misra G. (2004). Emotion in modern psychology and Indian thought. In Kirit Joshi &
Matthijs Cornellissen (Eds), Consciousness, science society and yoga. New Delhi: Centre
for the Studies of Civilization.
Misra, G. (2005). The science of affect: Some Indian insights. In K. Ramakrishna Rao &
Sonali Bhatt-Marwah (Eds), Towards a spiritual Psychology: Essays in Indian psychology
(pp. 229–248). New Delhi: Samvad India Foundation.
Misra, G. (2007). Psychology and societal development: Paradigmatic and social concerns.
New Delhi: Concept.
Misra, G., & Gergen, K.J. (1993). On the place of culture in psychological science. International
Journal of Psychology, 28, 225–243.
Misra, G., & Kumar, (in press). Psychology in India: retrospect and prospect. In G. Misra (Ed.),
Psychology in India: advances in research vol. 4. New Delhi: Pearson Education.
Misra, G., & Mohanty, A. (Eds). (2002). Perspectives on indigenous psychology. New Delhi:
Concept.
Misra, G., Prakash, A., & Varma, S. (1999). Psychology in India: Perceptions and perspectives.
Psychology and Developing Societies, 11, 25–53.
Misra, G., & Tripathi, K.N. (2004). Psychological dimensions of poverty and deprivation.
In J. Pandey (Ed.), Psychology in India revisited: Development in the discipline (Vol. 3)
(pp. 118–215). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Nakamura, H. (1997). Ways of thinking of eastern peoples: India, China, Tibet and Japan.
London: Kegun Paul.
Nandy, A. (Ed.). (1988). Science, hegemony and violence: A requiem for modernity. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Nandy, A. (1995). The savage Freud: The first non-Western psychoanalysts and the politics
of secret-selves in colonial India. In A. Nandy (Ed.), The Savage Freud and other essays on
possible and retrievable selves (pp. 81–144). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Pandey, J. (Ed.). (1988). Psychology in India: The state-of-the art (Vols.1, 2, 3). New Delhi:
SAGE Publications.
Pandey, J. (Ed.). (2001). Psychology in India revisited, Vol. 1. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Pandey, J. (Ed.). (2002). Psychology in India revisited, Vol. 2. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Pandey, J. (2004). Psychology in India enters the twenty-first century: Movement toward an
indigenous discipline. In J. Pandey (Ed.), Psychology in India revisited: Developments in
the discipline (vol. 3, pp. 342–370). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Paranjpe, A.C. (1984). Theoretical psychology: The meeting of east and west. New York: Plenum
Press.
Paranjpe, A.C. (1998). Self and identity in modern psychology and Indian thought. New York:
Plenum.

Paranjpe, A.C. (2006). From tradition through colonialism to globalization: Reflections on

the history of psychology in India. In A.C. Brock (Ed.), Internationalizing the history of
psychology. New York: New York University Press.
Paranjpe, A.C. (2009). In defence of an Indian approach to the psychology of emotion.
Psychological Studies, 54(1), 3–22.
Pelton, L.H. (1974). The psychology of nonviolence. NewYork: Pergamon Press.
Premasiri, P.D. (2008). Verities of cognition in early Buddhism. In K.R. Rao, A.C. Paranjpe
& A.K. Dalal (Eds), Handbook of Indian Psychology (pp. 85–104). New Delhi: Cambridge
University Press.
Radhakrishnan, S. (1953). The principal Upanishads. London: Allen & Unwind.
Rao, K.R. (1988). What is Indian psychology? Journal of Indian Psychology, 7(1), 37–57.
Rao, K.R. (2002a). Consciousness studies: Cross-cultural perspectives. Jefferson, NC:
McFarland.
Rao, K.R. (2002b). Consciousness studies: A survey of perspectives and research. In J. Pandey
(Ed.), Psychology in India revisited, Vol. 2 (pp. 19–162). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Rao, K.R. (2008). Prologue: Introducing Indian psychology. In K.R. Rao, A.C. Paranjpe &
A.K. Dalal (Eds), Handbook of Indian Psychology (pp. 1–18). New Delhi: Cambridge
University Press.
Rao, K.R., & Marwaha, S.B. (Eds). (2005). Towards a spiritual psychology: Essays on Indian
psychology. New Delhi: Samvad Indian Foundation.
Rao, K.R., Paranjpe, A.C., & Dalal, A.K. (Eds). (2008). Handbook of Indian Psychology.
New Delhi: Cambridge University Press.
Rao, R. (1962). Development of psychological thought in India. Mysore: Kavyalaya.
Safaya, R. (1975). Indian psychology: A critical and historical analysis of psychological speculation
in India philosophical literature. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.
Saraswathi, T.S. (1999). Culture, socialization and human development: Theory, research and
applications in India. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Singh-Sengupta, S. (2001). Management of power: Ascent from self to self. Social Science
International, 17(1), 59–73.
Sinha, D. (1965). Integration of modern psychology with modern thought. In A.J. Sutchi &
M.A. Vick (Eds), Readings in humanistic psychology. (pp. 265–279). New York: Free
Press.
Sinha D. (1981). Non-western perspectives in psychology: Why, what and whiter? Journal of
Indian Psychology, 3, 1–9.
Sinha, D. (1986). Psychology in a third world country: An Indian experience. New Delhi: SAGE
Publications.
Sinha, D. (1996). Culturally rooted psychology in India: Dangers and developments. Inter-
national Journal of Psychology, 30, 99–110.
Sinha, D. (1997). Indigenizing psychology. In J.W. Berry, Y. Poortinga & J. Pandey (Eds),
Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Theoretical and methodological perspectives (Vol. 1).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Sinha, D. (1998). Changing perspectives in social psychology in India: A journey towards
indigenization. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 17–31.

Sinha, D., & Tripathi, R.C. (1994). Individualism in a collectivist culture: A case of coexistence
of the opposites. In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds),
Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and application (pp. 123–136). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Sinha, J. (1958). Indian psychology, Vol. 1 & 2. Calcutta: Jadunath Sinha Foundation.
Sinha, J.B.P. (2000a). Patterns of Work Culture: Cases and Strategies for Culture Building.
New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Sinha, J.B.P. (2000b). Indigenization of psychology in India. Psychological Studies, 45, 3–13.
Snyder, C.R., & Lopez, S. (2002). Handbook of positive psychology. New York: Academic
Press.
Sri Aurobindo (1939/2006). The life divine. Puducherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram.
Srivastava , A.K., & Misra, G. (2003). Going beyond the model of economic man: An indi-
genous perspective on happiness. Journal of Indian Psychology, 21, 12–29.
Srivastava, A.K., & Misra, G. (2007). Rethinking intelligence: Conceptualizing human competence
in cultural context. New Delhi: Concept.
Stanley, L. (Ed.). (1990). Feminist praxis: Research, theory and epistemology in feminist sociology.
London: Routledge.
Swami Rama, Ballentine, R., & Ajay, S. (1976). Yoga and psychotherapy. Honesdale, PA:
Himalayan Institute.
Tart, C. (1975). Transpersonal psychologies. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Tart, C. (2009). The end of materialism. Oakland, CA: Neotic Books.
Thapar, R. (2002). The Penguin History of Early India. New Delhi: Penguin.
Triandis, H.C. (1984). Toward a psychological theory of economic growth. International
Journal of Psychology, 19, 79–96.
VandenBos, G.R. (Ed.). (1996). Outcome assessment of psychotherapy. American Psychologist,
51(10), 17–25.
Varma, P.K. (2004). Being Indian. New Delhi: Penguin.
Wertz, F.J. (1998). The role of the humanistic movement in the history of psychology. Journal
of Humanistic Psychology, 38(1), 42–70.
Winternitz, M. (1927). A history of Indian literature, Vol. 1. (S. Ketkar, Trans.). Kolkata:
University of Calcutta Press.
Worchel, S., & Cooper, J. (1989). Understanding social psychology. Homewood, IL: The
Dorsey Press.
Ajit K. Dalal is Professor of Psychology at the University of Allahabad, India. He has published in the
areas of health beliefs, psychological healing and Indian psychology. His major books are Attribution
Theory and Research, New Directions in Indian Psychology (vol. 1) and Social Dimensions of Health
and Handbook of Indian Psychology.
Girishwar Misra is currently Professor of Psychology at University of Delhi, India. He has under-
taken major research projects and written extensively in the areas of poverty, stress, environment,
cultural Psychology of self and emotions, creativity, psychological theory and well-being.

The Core and Context of Indian Psychology: Ajit K. Dalal

Uploaded by

The Core and Context of Indian Psychology: Ajit K. Dalal

Uploaded by

This article makes an effort to conceptualise the emerging field of scholarship called Indian Psychology

The Core and Context

University of Allahabad, Allahabad

University of Delhi, Delhi

Keywords: Indian psychology, experiential knowledge, transcendental,

Address correspondence concerning this article to Ajit K. Dalal, Department of Psychology,

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

The Core and Context of Indian Psychology

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

Brief Historical Background

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

brought into focus the significance of culture in understanding psycho-

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

The Changing Perceptions of IP

Ostensibly, there is a change in attitude and perception of IP in the last

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

as well as among practitioners is evident from the quantum of research and

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

and characteristics found in the industrialised Western societies. Thus, low

The Disciplinary Contours

What is Indian in IP? In terms of field, content and methodology IP maintains

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

also on other philosophies of the region, such as Zoroastrianism and Sufism.

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

proposed, analysed, interpreted, refined and transmitted knowledge to the

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

pursuit of goals like artha and kāma have to be made compatible

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

“otherworldly” as the ideal personhood is to be Jivanmukta—living

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

and leisure to maintain health. Health is a state of balance (samatva)

Some Distinguishing Features of IP

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

self-understanding, self-control, Yoga, meditation, human conduct, pain,

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

state of consciousness. When this happens there arises unmediated direct

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

these areas but by being positioned at an appropriate level provides a broader

What is Not the Core of Indian Psychology?

As mentioned earlier, a distinction is generally made between Indian Psychology

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

IP is Not Just a Psychology of Indian People

Due to common historical, social and cultural background, it is natural that

Psychology and Developing Societies 22, 1 (2010): 121–155

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

IP is Not Indigenous Psychology

D. Sinha (1996) has reminded us about two types of indigenisation. The