COMMENTARY

A Commentary on “Positive Psychology and Indian Psychology:In Need of Mutual Reinforcement”

R. M. Matthijs Cornelissen

Received: 18 August 2013 /Accepted: 22 August 2013# National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India 2014

Abstract For those who consider Indian Psychology (IP) acause worthy of support, comparing IP with Positive Psychol-ogy (PP) is a compelling, but at first sight rather embarrassingexercise. Though these two approaches to psychology startedroughly at the same time with similar-looking intentions, PPhas made by now a major impact in terms of published papers,books and “name recognition”, while IP is still no more than afringe phenomenon that is hardly on themap, even in India. K.Ramakrishna Rao’s analysis of the situation is as alwaysimpressive, but alternative perspectives are possible. To start,I agree of course with Prof. Ramakrishna Rao that these twonew schools of psychology are similar in their intent ofbringing some more “goodness” into mainstream psychology,but in my humble opinion, their similarity ends there. PP is asimple attempt at correcting mainstream psychology’s tenden-cy to focus primarily on difficulties and negative emotionalstates. Beyond that, it doesn’t challenge the mainstream in anyway. In spite of a not very successful attempt atinternationalising itself (for an excellent critique seeChristopher & Hickinbottom, 2008), it is still solidly Ameri-can, and as a whole it fits perfectly and noiselessly within theexisting discipline and its supporting culture.

Keywords Positive psychology . Indian psychology .

Research paradigm . Consciousness

The situation for Indian Psychology (IP) is more complex. IPis rooted in a radically different understanding of reality thanthe one which gave rise to mainstream psychology. Thismakes it difficult for us, proud citizens of the new global

civilization, to understand IP, as not only our entire formaleducation, but increasingly even our upbringing and our workand home environments are steeped in the “modern”, physi-calist worldview. Whether it is because of the lingering dom-inance of Euro-American influence, or because we are in thedarkest hours of the kaliyuga, almost all of us, and perhapsespecially the well-educated leaders of the scientific commu-nity, tend to see the world as primarily material. Morganet al.’s still widely used Introduction to Psychology (1993, p.38) admonishes us “not [to] forget that we are a species ofanimal”, and we obey: at least as scientists, we see ourselvesfirst and foremost as biology-driven animals. We take con-sciousness as a product of the workings of the brain, and inspite of all humanistic, transpersonal and post-modern efforts,we still look at religion, morals and love as “the trouble”(Watson, 1929). Obviously, the authors of the Rig Veda andthe early Upanishads did not share our way of looking at theworld. They looked at the world as a manifestation of con-sciousness (brahman, sachchidananda) and asserted that anindividual’s Self is one with the Self of the universe. It is hardto exaggerate how deeply Infinity permeated their understand-ing of reality, and thus, how difficult it is for us, who live in amuch more fragmented surface consciousness, to really un-derstand what they meant with their assertions. Rather signif-icantly, the Indian tradition did not include psychology in thelist of sciences (like metallurgy and economics), which couldbe understood from within the ordinary, dualistic knowledge,avidya. They held that the Self could only be known throughvidya, the intrinsically true, non-dual knowledge they hadfound beyond the ordinary mind. In other words, the essentialcore of IP is rooted in non-dual knowledge, and so, to get arealistic grasp of IP, one needs to have access to this type ofknowing. From within the ordinary mind, one can at mostmanipulate the assertions of IP in the speculative manner ofphilosophy, but to understand them in the detailed, concretemanner of science, to turn them into know-how that can be

R. M. M. Cornelissen (*)Indian Psychology Institute,(A1) Anandam Apartments, 42 Pappammal Koil Street,Kurruchikuppam, Puducherry 605012, Indiae-mail: matthijs@ipi.org.in

Psychol StudDOI 10.1007/s12646-014-0248-8

developed further, one has to master the non-dual knowledgeof vidya. This is not easy, and while everyone can gain fromasanas and mindfulness, to study the inner depths of IPrequires a sustained inner effort, tapasya. So, IP is not foreveryone. In itself this does not go against it. Physics andmathematics cannot be understood by everyone either. But itmay preclude quick and widespread adoption within the sci-entific community.

There are several factors that complicate the situation for IPon a more pragmatic, tactical level. The first is perhaps that IPdeals with issues that in our present world order are generallytaken as part of religion: issues like the existence of non-physical “worlds”, life after death, reincarnation, the soul,our relation to the Divine, and so on. That IP tries to deal withthese issues with all the intellectual rectitude and rigour ofscience does not diminish that fact that for most people theseissues are a matter of religious belief, and with that of deeplyheld emotional attachments. Another obstacle is created by thename “Indian Psychology”. It is a name that needs explanationevery time it is used (Prof. Ramakrishna Rao devotes no lessthan seven paragraphs to it!) and it continues to court contro-versy due to its associations with various forms of Indiannationalism. For an approach to science with claims of uni-versality, this is a problematic encumbrance.

As for the use of “mutual reinforcement”, I agree that bothIP and the othermembers of the psychology community wouldgain from more interaction, but I would not like to limit it toPP. I’d rather expand it towards other disciplines: the socialsciences, humanities, medicine, physics, and of course philos-ophy. How useful the interaction is depends, however, on howit is done. Prof. Ramakrishna Rao advocates two movements:theory to go from IP to PP; methodology from PP to IP.

Logically speaking, the consciousness-based foundation ofIP should be capable of providing a more coherent and fruitfulframework for psychology than the material basis of main-stream psychology. IP may also be able to provide specific,well-integrated theories that could inform many areas of psy-chology, but such cross-cultural “transfers” have to be under-taken with extreme care and a thoroughness that I’m not sureIP is ready for. Offering what is true according to a scripture orpersonality, however great, without sufficient respect forexisting studies, which have been found true and effectivewithin their own context, is bound to provoke well-deservedantagonism. And if the effort lacks sufficient depth and rigour,one risks the type of conceptual confusion that has blightedtranspersonal psychology and some of Ken Wilber’s work(Ferrer 2002).

The other way around, inviting PP’s methodological prow-ess to reinforce IP is perhaps even more problematic. Theresearch methods PP uses have already been applied to yogaand meditation on quite a large scale (see Murphy &

Donovan, 1997; Sedlmeier et al. 2012), but studies of thistype can only tell whether yoga and meditation work. Theycannot help to find out how theywork, and they cannot help todevelop them further (Walsh & Shapiro, 2006). To study theinner processes at work in yoga and meditation, one needsresearch methods that are fit for purpose, and to find those,one has to dive deep into the Indian tradition itself. Just as tostudy physics, one has to use equipment that has been madewith the specialised knowledge and know-how that arisesfrom physics itself, so to study yoga, one has to use methodsthat arise out of the yoga andmeditation traditions. To developthose methods is, again, not easy; it demands endless patience,dedication and persistence, and the whole process will taketime, but in my humble opinion it is the only effective wayforward for IP (Cornelissen, 2006).

To end, I’d like to make a short remark on “success”. IfHumanistic Psychology is less heard of now than 40 yearsago, does that really mean that it has not been successful?Could it not be that once the message has been delivered, themessenger can be forgotten? Could it not be that the mostimpressive sign of PP’s success would not be its persistence asa separate school, but an increased attention within themainstream for issues like happiness, well-being, skilful liv-ing and flow? For me, the final sign of success for IP wouldnot be that its name would be on everybody’s lips, but that theessence of its worldview, its research methodologies, its mas-ter theories, and its methods for increasing individual andcollective happiness and harmony would find a wider adapta-tion within the mainstream.

References

Christopher, J. C., & Hickinbottom, S. (2008). Positive psychology,ethnocentrism, and the disguised ideology of individualism.Theory & Psychology, 18, 563–589.

Cornelissen, R. M.M. (2006). Research about yoga and research in yoga:Towards rigorous research in the subjective domain. Accessed on 15Jun 2013 at http://www.ipi.org.in/texts/matthijs/mc-researchinyoga.php.

Ferrer, J. N. (2002). Revisioning transpersonal theory: A participatoryvision of human spirituality. New York: SUNY Press.

Morgan, C. T., King, R. A., Weisz, J. R., & Schopler, J. (1993).Introduction to psychology. New-Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill.

Murphy, M., & Donovan, S. (1997). The physical and psycholog-ical effects of meditation. Sausalito: Institute of NoeticSciences.

Sedlmeier, P., Eberth, J., Schwarz, M., Zimmermann, D., Haarig, F.,Jaeger, S., & Kunze, S. (2012). The psychological effects of med-itation: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 1139–1171.

Walsh, R., & Shapiro, S. L. (2006). The meeting of meditative disciplinesand western psychology: a mutually enriching dialogue. AmericanPsychologist, 61(3), 227–239.

Watson, J. B. (1929). Behaviorism. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Psychol Stud