Some Psychological aspects in Indian Philosophy

Vijay Kumar Dadhich

(lecturers)
Jawaharlal neharu shiksha shastri college
sakatpura Kota (RAJ.)

Introduction

SwamiVivekananda wrote more than a century ago:

“The idea of psychology in the West is very much degraded. Psychology is
the science of sciences; but in the West, it is placed upon the same plane as all
other sciences; that is, it is judged by the same criterion- utility. …

“In the four and a half centuries from the European “discovery” of Asia to the present
period of intensified culture contact, Europeans and Asians alike have learned all too
little about each other. False antitheses and monolithic comparisons have persisted from
one generation to the next; knowledge is difficult to attain, understanding is more so, and
resort to cliché generalization proves irresistible. In recent times, some of these clichés
have been dressed up in new jargons so that thousands of unwary readers have been lead
to believe that they were being given new magic keys that would open the door to the
“Oriental mind”, “Oriental logic” or whatnot. But the keys opened doors into dream
worlds inhabited only by clichés and fantasies.”

Some people think of science and the scientific method as the only or the best way to
establish the truth; and as though highly technical or extraordinarily complex. This is due
to their ignorance of the exact meaning of science and the essentials of scientific method.
The essential characteristic of the scientific method is a particular intellectual attitude
towards any problem that may come up for solution, whether it be a problem in
mathematics, physics, economics, aesthetics, education, law, medicine, engineering,
state-craft, handicraft, or psychology. Many people in the world may be applying the
scientific method in their daily round of duty without their being aware of it. Anyone
going through the works of the masterminds among both Eastern and Western scientists
finds that there is a striking resemblance in their intellectual attitude towards problems
that presented themselves before them. It is an attitude characterized by accurate
observation ( n”kZu and Hkw;ksn”kZuk ), precise description, correct classification,
patient experimentation (ijh{kk), rigid reasoning (;qfDr;qDre~), careful verification
(fu.kZ;), institution of crucial tests wherever necessary, and, above all, that supreme
faculty of analytic-synthetic imagination (cqf)) that can see the one connecting law
running through the whole range of a mass of apparently unconnected phenomena. Facts
are sterile until there are minds capable of choosing between them and discerning those,
which conceal something and recognizing that which is concealed; minds, which, under
the bare fact, see the ‘soul’ of the fact. The methods by which thinkers, both in the East
and in the West, have tried to see, ‘under the bare fact, the soul of the fact’ are
fundamentally similar. The difference exists only in name, not in essence. What science
demands from its votaries is a severe discipline in the habitual use of the keen perceptual
processes, the sharpened intellect, the trained mind, and a vivid imagination.

Firstly, the all-observing, keen perceptual processes of the scientist help him/her to
observe minutely and widely and collect as many facts as s/he can gather. This is often a
very laborious process. Secondly, the sharpened intellect, playing upon the facts so
gathered, carefully analyses, catalogues, and categorizes them. These categories, viewed
from a synthetic standpoint, suggest certain generalizations, which include all the facts or
phenomena so far observed. Thirdly, the trained mind brooding upon these
generalizations evolves a hypothesis, or may be, more than one hypothesis, in
explanation of, and based on, these observed facts or phenomena. Every such hypothesis
is merely a claim waiting to be verified experimentally. That hypothesis alone which is
shown by experiments to work best, becomes the accepted theory, which is nothing more
than the best working hypothesis, among perhaps several that may have been advanced.
Moreover, its acceptance is merely tentative or provisional, contingent not only on the
continued occurrence of verified phenomena but also on similar non-occurrence of
contrary ones, for there is really no finality in science. The scientific method, then, is
essentially a hypothetical or experimental method of trial and error. It treats all ‘facts’ as
data to be replicated, all ‘principles’ as working hypotheses to be confirmed, all ‘truths’
as claims to be verified, and all allegations to be tested and evaluated according to the
scientific consequences to which they lead. Finally, in all this, a vivid imagination is a
most precious gift provided it is strictly controlled by rigid logic and crucial
experimentation. At the outset, therefore, scientific method is satisfied with provisional
conclusions that are not greatly trusted; and to the end, it is recognized that the human
mind does not respond to the infinite gradations of logical probability, but becomes
content and certain as soon as the evidence for a belief seems to it adequate. After that,
the question is humanly settled, unless and until something occurs to reopen it. Science,
then, is merely criticized, systematized and generalized knowledge.

Any individual who insists on objectively verifying the facts, attempts to classify facts
systematically into meaningful categories, perceives their mutual relations and
differences, describes their sequences by applying logical reasoning, and draws coherent
conclusions and appropriate implications - is a man of science. The student of science
takes more pains than the average person does to get at the facts. S/he is not content with
sporadic knowledge, but will have as large a body of facts as s/he can get. S/he
systematizes these data, observes certain logical processes and certain orders of inference
from them, and sums up in a generalization or formula.

With modesty, enlightened self-awareness and self-criticism, tolerant appreciation, and

creative integration, a new culture, a new system of thought, or a new method of study
may develop. Valid and useful knowledge is possible not through ethnocentrism, nor by
outright rejection of any particular system or method; but only through systematic,
synthetic integration. The Indian students of psychology are advantaged and fortunate,
compared to their Western peers. Without getting themselves involved and trapped by
ethnocentric biases, they ought to utilize and integrate the positive aspects of both the
Indian and Western scientific methods. The present paper argues that Indian scientific
methods are neither antagonistic nor alternatives to; but comprehensively encompass and
complement, the Western scientific methods.

The Importance of Psychology

People seem to forget that about ninety percent of all our knowledge cannot, in the very
nature of things, be applied in a practical way to aid to our material happiness or to lessen
our misery. Only the smallest fraction of our scientific knowledge can have any such
application to our daily lives. This is so because only an infinitely small percentage of our
conscious mind is on a sensuous plane. We have just a little bit of sensuous
consciousness and imagine that to be our entire mind and life; but, as a matter of fact, it is
but a drop in the mighty ocean of subconscious mind. If all there is of us were a bundle of
sense-perceptions, all the knowledge we could gain could be utilized in the gratification
of our sense-pleasures. …

But even taking the Western idea of utility as a criterion by which to judge, psychology,
by such standard even, is the science of sciences. Why? We are all slaves to our senses,
slaves to our own minds, conscious and subconscious.

Deep down in our subconscious mind are stored up all the thoughts and acts of the past,
not only of this life, but of all other lives we have lived. This great boundless ocean of
subjective mind is full of all the thoughts and actions of the past. …

It the science of psychology that teaches us to hold in check the wild gyrations of the
mind, place it under the control of the will, and thus free ourselves from its tyrannous
mandates. Psychology is therefore science of sciences, without which all sciences and
all other knowledge are worthless.

The mind uncontrolled and unguided will drag us down, down, for ever- rend us, kill us;
and the mind controlled and guided will save us, free us. So it must be controlled, and
psychology teaches us how to do it.

To study and analyse any material science, sufficient data are obtained. These facts are
studied and analysed, and knowledge of the science is the result. But in the study and
analysis of the mind, there are no data, no facts acquired from without, such as are
equally at the command of all. The mind is analysed by itself. The greatest science,
therefore, is the science of the mind, the science of psychology. …

If you intend to study the mind, you must have systematic training; you must practice to
bring the mind under your control, to attain to that consciousness from which you will be
able to study the mind and remain unmoved by any of its wild gyrations. Otherwise, the
facts observed will not be reliable; they will not apply to all people and therefore will not
be facts or data at all. …

The Essentials of the Indian Scientific Method

Epistemology or the theory of knowledge has acquired special importance in European
philosophy in the modern period. However, in India the position has been otherwise.
From the very beginning of the different schools of thought until recent times,
discussions on the problems of knowledge (both empirical and intuitive) have formed an
essential part of philosophy. Max Weber said, “The premise which is common in the last
analysis to all philosophies in Asia is that knowledge- whether it be that of books or
mystical gnosis- is the only absolute way leading to supreme bliss in this world as well as
in the next world.” All schools of Indian thought, without exception, regarded ignorance
as the root cause of human suffering. Therefore, they were bent upon discovering the
methods, processes, and types of valid knowledge; and using that knowledge for
understanding the reality, living life meaningfully and peacefully by minimizing
suffering and overcoming misery, and attaining self-realization and immortality. The
Indian systems and theories analysed and categorized the factors constituting and
connected with knowledge (Kkuorizek) into the subject (Kk+=orizek=), the object
(Ks;orizes;), and the means of knowledge (izek.k). Knowledge, in the strict sense of
correct cognition, is called izek, and a source of knowledge is called a izek.k . The
Indian philosophies and sciences recognize four tests of valid empirical knowledge.
These are: (a);FkkFkZ correspondence or agreement or harmony of ideas or
judgments with facts, (b)izo`frlkEF;Z, workability or practical utility that prompts
fruitful activity, (c)vckf?krRo, coherence or non-contradiction or logical consistency
of a judgment with other judgments known to be true, and (d)uwruRo, novelty of the
truth that acquaints us with something new. However, some schools (the
v}SrosnkUr, for example) recognize only the empirical reality of the world, but not
its ontological reality; for, the empirical knowledge of plurality is contradicted by the
intuition of identity of the absolute. Similarly, the Buddhists consider intuition as a
different and higher form of consciousness (cqf) orlEcqf)), which resolves the
contradictions in which the lower thought, bound up with the activities of the senses and
entangled with polarities and diversities created by the intellect, is hopelessly involved.

Methods of Indian Psychology

Western sciences generally admit two chief sources of valid knowledge: perception and
inference. However, the different Indian schools of thought, in addition to izR;{k
(perception or observation) and vuqeku (inductive and deductive inferential
reasoning), mieku(analogy or comparison),also recognize various other sources of
valid knowledge such as “kCnor vkIropue~ (words of scriptures or testimony by
competent authority), vFkkZifRr(implication), vuqiyfC?k (noncognition), and
lEHkkouk (possible entailment). Further, in addition to pure empirical observation,
The Carvaka school regards perception alone, the Buddhists regards perception and
inference, the Samkya and the Yoga schools regard perception, inference and testimony,
eheklka and v}SrosnkUr schools regard perception, inference, comparison,
testimony, presumption, and non-apprehension – as the sources of valid knowledge. Brief
descriptions of the main six methods follow.

izR;{k (Perception or Observation)

Almost all the schools of Indian thought admit izR;{k or perceptual knowledge to be
the basic source of valid knowledge. However, they distinguish between objective and
subjective perceptions. Objective perception entails knowledge generated by the contact
and relation of a sense organ (bfUnz;) to some object
(bfUnz;kFkZlfUUd’kZtU;Kkue~). Objective perception may be indeterminate
and determinate. Indeterminate perception is presentive, immediate apprehension or
knowledge of acquaintance - just nameless sensory awareness of an object as something,
which does not involve knowledge of relations, assimilation, and discrimination.
Determinate perception is presentive-representative; definite knowledge endowed with
qualities, actions, generality, and other features, and involves memory. Most schools
accept the view that we have six sensory organs of knowledge(KkusfUnz;kWa)- the
five external ones of sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell, and the internal one, ekul
(mind). If the object is an external one, the knower (the vkReu~/ Self/ Soul) directs the
mind to gather the knowledge of or about it through the appropriate external sense organ.

Indian psychologists realized that the self is not known objectively – not even as the
object of introspection – but as the consciousness, which immediately manifests itself.
Further, the Yoga system demonstrated that extra-sensory perception and super-conscious
knowledge are possible, which are not accessible to any external sense organ. Hence,
people have everywhere turned to, with a view to add to, or correct the knowledge gained
by direct observation.

Indian scientists have not been mere objective observers and speculative thinkers so far
as psychology is concerned. They have also realized that the various states of mind
cannot be properly understood without bringing in the subjective element; namely,
training of the perceiving mind. They have never been inclined toward Behaviorism of
the Western type. Hence, they explored and experimented with various forms of
subjective knowledge. In subjective perception, the soul has simply to attend to it through
the mind alone, without depending on any sense organs. Here, the mind does the double
duty of an agent of attention as well as that of an internal sense organ.

Study of the total mind (unconscious, sub-conscious, conscious, and super-conscious) is

the special interest of Indian psychology. Indian psychologists have always laid great
emphasis on the understanding of not merely the conscious, but also the various kinds of
super-conscious and extra-sensory perception. In order to understand the objective
validity of the various forms of extra-sensory perceptions and super-conscious
cognitions, and to know the unconscious, one must experience and reflect upon these
states.

Hence, in their study and exploration they have evolved methods of developing various
extra-sensory experiences and super-conscious realization. Mind is sometimes considered
to be a whole and called vUr%dj.k or the internal organ (as in lka[; and osnkUr) or
fpRr (as in Yoga), but sometimes distinguished by its four-fold functions, such as
explication, recollection, determination and self-reference into the four aspects, namely,
ekul (mind), fpRr (Sub-conscious), cqf) (intellect), and vgadkj (ego-sense),
respectively. It is generally admitted that if the internal organ in some aspect does not
assume the form of the object and present it to the Self or self-shining consciousness,
there cannot be any knowledge of the object. This clue is utilized by the Yoga when it
teaches that the modification of the Chitta into the form of the object should be stopped,
so that no object may appear before consciousness and tempt it to attachment and
bondage. Hence, Yoga is defined as the arrest of modification of the internal organ.

In chapter III of ;ksxlw=, irtafy discusses these supernatural powers elaborately.

Ikrtafy actually made a science of them by showing methods of not only developing
these powers, but also of controlling the central and sympathetic nervous system and
bringing about suspension of animation, breath control, etc. He labels these powers as
flf);kWa and discusses the acquiring of knowledge of past and future lives and events,
subtle elements of matter, and the power to become invisible, move through the air,
appear in different places simultaneously, walk on water, and so on. In Buddhist
psychology, these powers have been called vfHkKku such as (a) subtle, extra-sensory
hearing, (b) subtle, extra-sensory sight, (c) knowledge of previous births, (d) thought-
reading, and (5) magical powers. ;ksxlw= of irtafy, gB;ksxiznhfidk etc. are
thorough-going studies of various aspects of extra-sensory perception, in which different
methods of developing these powers are described .

vuqeku (Inference)

vuqeku (inference) is the kind of knowledge, which is derived from previous

knowledge of an invariable relation, technically called Vyapti or pervasion, between a
sign (linga) and something bearing that sign (lignin). Gautama, the founder of the Nyaya
School, and his later followers studied and wrote on inference extensively for centuries
and influenced the views of other schools. Gautama laid down five steps as necessary for
an inference when it is required to demonstrate a conclusion without straying from the
point to be proved and without committing any formal or material fallacy. For Gautama,
an inference or syllogism consists of the following five propositions:

1. Thesis (izfrKk) is the proposition to be proved (e.g., ioZrksofg~ueku~

the hill has fire),
2. Reason (gsrq) is in support of the proposition (e.g.,/kweoRokr~ because it
is smoky),’)
3. Example (mnkgj.k) states the invariable relation between the sign and the
signified, supported by some concrete instance guaranteeing material validity
(e.g., ;= /kwe r= ofg~u ;Fkk egkul%whatever is smoky, is fiery; as the
kitchen having a fireplace),
4. Application (miu;%) shows how the above relation applies to the case in hand
(e.g., the hill is smoky, as smoke invariably accompanies fire), and
5. Conclusion (fuxeu) (e.g., therefore, the hill has fire’).

It may be observed that the Greek Syllogism propounded by Aristole and widely used in
Western logic consists of three propositions – the third, fourth, and fifth of the Nyaya
syllogism. Whereas the Aristotelian syllogism is purely deductive, Anumana, as
conceived here, is a formal-material, deductive-inductive process.
In vuqeku, the invariable relation is established by different inductive methods. The
Buddhist logicians adopt the five-step method of observation called iapdj.kh, namely,
(1) cause is not perceived, effect is also not perceived, (2) cause is perceived, (3) effect is
also perceived, (4) cause disappears, (5) effect also disappears. The Buddhist logicians
insist that the iapdj.kh illustrates that the following changes being observed, everything
else remaining constant, the relation of cause and effect is rigorously established. In his
‘Positive Sciences of the Ancient Hindus’, Sir Brajendranath Seal characterizes the
Buddhist method of establishing induction through causal connection as the double
method of difference and notes its superiority to the ordinary single method of difference
adopted by Western logicians.

In the Western sciences, of all the modes of logical inference, there are no more than
there were in the days of Aristotle, who recognized three: (a) analogical reasoning
(argument from particular to particular), (b) inductive reasoning (argument from
particulars to the universal principles, and (c) deductive reasoning (argument from the
universal/ general to particulars). If we compare the above Western methods of
inferential reasoning with Anumana, we find not only striking similarities, but also notice
that Anumana as a Formal-Material, Deductive-Inductive inference is more
comprehensive and more scientific than Aristotle’s Formal-Deductive process of
reasoning or Mill’s Material-Inductive process of mediate inference, which combines
formal validity with material truth, inductive generalization with deductive
particularization.Therefore, Indian scientists relied on other methods suitable for the
study of diverse phenomena in different sciences.

mieku (Comparison or knowledge from similarity)

Upamana is knowledge of similarity about an absent or unfamiliar object obtained from

the perceived similarity of a present or familiar object. It is the knowledge of the relation
of a name and an object named.

“kCn or vkIropue~ (Testimony)

Testimony or an authoritative statement (vkIropue~) is a sentence, which consists of

words (“kCn). Except the pkokZd and oS”ksf’kd schools, who admit only
perception and inference, the other Indian schools accept testimony of an authority as the
third source of valid knowledge. The former, like Western logicians, think that
knowledge from authority is really a kind of inference, based on the reliability of the
authority. However, the latter consider vuqeku and “kCn as different. Testimony is of
two types: (a) testimony that conveys knowledge of sensible objects, (b) testimony that
conveys knowledge of supersensible objects. In order to yield valid knowledge, a
statement must fulfill the following conditions. (a) A word in a sentence, by itself, is
incomplete unless it carries some meaning and raises some expectation (vkdka{kk).
(b) The meanings of the different words in a sentence should possess mutual
compatibility (;ksX;rk) and thereby fulfill the expectation raised by one another. (c)
The words in a sentence must have mutual proximity (lfUuf/k), i.e., should not be
uttered or written at long intervals. (d) The words in the statement must be appropriate to
the context (izdj.k). (e) The statement must convey the intention of the speaker
(rkRi;Z).

If we disbelieve authority, we have to go without so much of valuable knowledge

obtainable from the statements of the scriptures and of specialists, experts, and other
experienced persons. India is proud of its _f’k, vkpk;Z, ijegal, ;ksfx, fl), xq:,
egkRek, and Lokfe;ksass, who realized the truth and documented it for the benefit of
the posterity. They have lived and experienced the truths with honesty, sincerity,
dedication, and devotion. If we disbelieve their words, we shall miss a lot and may have
to waste so much time and energy in discovering the truths for and by ourselves. Of
course, it is true that only the words of a reliable person (vkIr) can yields valid
knowledge. As in the Western sciences, while preparing a review of literature to develop
testable hypotheses, the student must authenticate the reliability of the authority and the
validity of the statements.

vFkkZifRr (Presumption or Implication)

vFkkZifRr means the presupposition of what is necessary for explaining any fact
either observed (n`’V) or heard about (“kzqr). By this method, we suppose a word in a
sentence where it remains understood, or we suppose the secondary, figurative meaning
of a sentence where the primary meaning does not suit. It resembles the method of
formulating a hypothesis recognized by Western logicians; but the difference is that here
the supposition is not provisional but necessary to reconcile inconsistent facts.
Confronted with the problem of judging and choosing rightly, among a number of
contending alternatives or hypotheses both the Eastern and the Western philosophies
have come to very nearly the same conclusion that there is no finality about either our
premises or our conclusions. All that we can do is to test each hypothesis with the
greatest possible care and accept that which explains and works best or better. The
Western sciences insist that a good hypothesis must allow of the application of deductive
reasoning and the inference of consequences capable of comparison with the results of
observation. Therefore, Indian sciences have laid down stringent tests of a legitimate
hypothesis. A legitimate hypothesis must satisfy the following conditions. (1) The
hypothesis must explain the facts. (2) The hypothesis must not be in conflict with any
observed fact or established generalizations. (3) The hypothesis should not assume any
unobserved fact, event, or agent where it is possible to explain the facts satisfactorily by
observed agencies. (4) When two rival hypotheses are in conflict, a crucial fact or test is
necessary in order to establish either. (5) Of two rival hypotheses, the simpler, i.e., with
minimum assumptions, is to be preferred. (6) Of two rival hypotheses, that which is
immediate or relevant to the context is to be preferred to that which is alien or remote. (7)
A hypothesis that satisfies the above conditions must be capable of verification before it
can be established as a theory. Thus, it is evident that in Indian sciences, the tests of a
valid hypothesis are extremely rigid and stringent.

vuqiyfC/k (Non-apprehension)
dqekfjy HkV~V school of ehekalk and v}Sr school of Vedanta admit appropriate
(;ksX;) non-apprehension as a unique and valid source of knowledge. Non-apprehension
apprehends non-existence of an object, which is not present. Just as positive cognition is
the source of the information positive entities, absence of the knowledge of a thing (under
circumstances in which it should have been known had it existed) yields us the
information about its non-existence. Non-existence in not merely ideal and subjective,
not even a logical category; but it is real and objective, and an ontological category.

Conclusion

Extravagant expectations continue to be entertained regarding possible achievements of

the scientific method not only by the public at large but also by professed scientists in
both East and West. The public still believes that statistical or mathematical
demonstration is the ultimate truth, though modern mathematicians are under no such
illusion. To some people, the most satisfactory testimony for truth is not so much its
empirical validity or logical consistency, but its utility and practical application to reality,
i.e., ‘truth is what works’. To others, however, the most satisfactory testimony for truth is
its logical consistency or statistical probability. They accept that proposition as the best,
which, to them, has the logical certainty of a coherent system of assumptions. This will
perhaps explain in some measure why, ever since the dawn of history, there have been
sects in every science and there have been bitter quarrels among them. Wherever
knowledge is imperfect, as in psychology, differences of views are inevitable.

Contemporary psychology specializes at the interface of a number of scientific

disciplines. It occupies an intermediate position between philosophical, natural, social,
and cultural sciences. Its close affinity to these sciences, even the presence of certain
fields that they explore jointly in no way detracts from its independence. Psychology
preserves its object of investigation, its theoretical principles, and the methods of
studying this object in all its fields. Psychology is a science about facts, laws, and
mechanisms of the mind as an image of reality evolving in the brain and enabling the
individual to control his/her behaviour and activity determined by personal traits. All
sciences and branches of knowledge can only be meaningful if they serve man, enlighten
him, are engendered by him, arise and develop as human history and practice.