Psychol Stud
DOI 10.1007/s12646-014-0248-8
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) a
cause worthy of support, comparing IP with Positive Psychol-
ogy (PP) is a compelling, but at first sight rather embarrassing
exercise. Though these two approaches to psychology started
roughly at the same time with similar-looking intentions, PP
has made by now a major impact in terms of published papers,
books and “name recognition”, while IP is still no more than a
fringe phenomenon that is hardly on the map, even in India. K.
Ramakrishna Rao’s analysis of the situation is as always
impressive, but alternative perspectives are possible. To start,
I agree of course with Prof. Ramakrishna Rao that these two
new schools of psychology are similar in their intent of
bringing some more “goodness” into mainstream psychology,
but in my humble opinion, their similarity ends there. PP is a
simple attempt at correcting mainstream psychology’s tenden-
cy to focus primarily on difficulties and negative emotional
states. Beyond that, it doesn’t challenge the mainstream in any
way. In spite of a not very successful attempt at
internationalising itself (for an excellent critique see
Christopher & Hickinbottom, 2008), it is still solidly Ameri-
can, and as a whole it fits perfectly and noiselessly within the
existing discipline and its supporting culture.
Keywords Positive psychology . Indian psychology .
Research paradigm . Consciousness
The situation for Indian Psychology (IP) is more complex. IP
is rooted in a radically different understanding of reality than
the one which gave rise to mainstream psychology. This
makes it difficult for us, proud citizens of the new global
R. M. M. Cornelissen (*)
Indian Psychology Institute,
(A1) Anandam Apartments, 42 Pappammal Koil Street,
Kurruchikuppam, Puducherry 605012, India
e-mail: matthijs@ipi.org.in
civilization, to understand IP, as not only our entire formal
education, but increasingly even our upbringing and our work
and 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 the
darkest hours of the kaliyuga, almost all of us, and perhaps
especially the well-educated leaders of the scientific commu-
nity, tend to see the world as primarily material. Morgan
et al.’s still widely used Introduction to Psychology (1993, p.
38) admonishes us “not [to] forget that we are a species of
animal”, and we obey: at least as scientists, we see ourselves
first and foremost as biology-driven animals. We take con-
sciousness as a product of the workings of the brain, and in
spite 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 and
the early Upanishads did not share our way of looking at the
world. They looked at the world as a manifestation of con-
sciousness (brahman, sachchidananda) and asserted that an
individual’s Self is one with the Self of the universe. It is hard
to exaggerate how deeply Infinity permeated their understand-
ing of reality, and thus, how difficult it is for us, who live in a
much 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 the
list of sciences (like metallurgy and economics), which could
be understood from within the ordinary, dualistic knowledge,
avidya. They held that the Self could only be known through
vidya, the intrinsically true, non-dual knowledge they had
found beyond the ordinary mind. In other words, the essential
core of IP is rooted in non-dual knowledge, and so, to get a
realistic grasp of IP, one needs to have access to this type of
knowing. From within the ordinary mind, one can at most
manipulate the assertions of IP in the speculative manner of
philosophy, but to understand them in the detailed, concrete
manner of science, to turn them into know-how that can be

developed further, one has to master the non-dual knowledge
of vidya. This is not easy, and while everyone can gain from
asanas and mindfulness, to study the inner depths of IP
requires a sustained inner effort, tapasya. So, IP is not for
everyone. In itself this does not go against it. Physics and
mathematics cannot be understood by everyone either. But it
may preclude quick and widespread adoption within the sci-
entific community.
There are several factors that complicate the situation for IP
on a more pragmatic, tactical level. The first is perhaps that IP
deals with issues that in our present world order are generally
taken 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 with
these issues with all the intellectual rectitude and rigour of
science does not diminish that fact that for most people these
issues are a matter of religious belief, and with that of deeply
held emotional attachments. Another obstacle is created by the
name “Indian Psychology”. It is a name that needs explanation
every time it is used (Prof. Ramakrishna Rao devotes no less
than seven paragraphs to it!) and it continues to court contro-
versy due to its associations with various forms of Indian
nationalism. 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 both
IP and the other members of the psychology community would
gain from more interaction, but I would not like to limit it to
PP. I’d rather expand it towards other disciplines: the social
sciences, humanities, medicine, physics, and of course philos-
ophy. How useful the interaction is depends, however, on how
it 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 of
IP should be capable of providing a more coherent and fruitful
framework 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 sure
IP is ready for. Offering what is true according to a scripture or
personality, however great, without sufficient respect for
existing studies, which have been found true and effective
within their own context, is bound to provoke well-deserved
antagonism. And if the effort lacks sufficient depth and rigour,
one risks the type of conceptual confusion that has blighted
transpersonal 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. The
research methods PP uses have already been applied to yoga
and meditation on quite a large scale (see Murphy &
Psychol Stud
Donovan, 1997; Sedlmeier et al. 2012), but studies of this
type can only tell whether yoga and meditation work. They
cannot help to find out how they work, and they cannot help to
develop them further (Walsh & Shapiro, 2006). To study the
inner processes at work in yoga and meditation, one needs
research methods that are fit for purpose, and to find those,
one has to dive deep into the Indian tradition itself. Just as to
study physics, one has to use equipment that has been made
with the specialised knowledge and know-how that arises
from physics itself, so to study yoga, one has to use methods
that arise out of the yoga and meditation traditions. To develop
those methods is, again, not easy; it demands endless patience,
dedication and persistence, and the whole process will take
time, but in my humble opinion it is the only effective way
forward for IP (Cornelissen, 2006).
To end, I’d like to make a short remark on “success”. If
Humanistic Psychology is less heard of now than 40 years
ago, does that really mean that it has not been successful?
Could it not be that once the message has been delivered, the
messenger can be forgotten? Could it not be that the most
impressive sign of PP’s success would not be its persistence as
a separate school, but an increased attention within the
mainstream for issues like happiness, well-being, skilful liv-
ing and flow? For me, the final sign of success for IP would
not be that its name would be on everybody’s lips, but that the
essence of its worldview, its research methodologies, its mas-
ter theories, and its methods for increasing individual and
collective 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 15
Jun 2013 at http://www.ipi.org.in/texts/matthijs/mc-researchinyoga.
php.
Ferrer, J. N. (2002). Revisioning transpersonal theory: A participatory
vision 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 Noetic
Sciences.
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 disciplines
and western psychology: a mutually enriching dialogue. American
Psychologist, 61(3), 227–239.
Watson, J. B. (1929). Behaviorism. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.