Is Indian psychology a science? The paradigm debate

Supporters of Indian psychology often say it offers a "new paradigm" for psychology. Critics reply that it is not science at all, but philosophy or religion dressed in scientific words. Both sides use the same few terms, such as science, paradigm and evidence, and often mean different things by them.

This page gives you those terms first, in plain words. Then it sets out the two pictures of psychology that the debate is about, the best case for Indian psychology as a science, and the best criticisms, from inside the field and from outside. It ends with what the research evidence can show, what it cannot, and a fair way to answer the question in an exam.

The question matters beyond the exam hall. It decides what gets taught in psychology departments, which research gets funded, and whether a counsellor can honestly offer an Indian-derived practice to a client.

What makes something a science

Science is a way of finding out about the world by checking ideas against observation. The checking is public: other people can repeat it and see whether they get the same result. Two older ideas sit underneath this.

Key concept

empiricism

Literally

Greek empeiria, experience

Empiricism is the view that knowledge comes from experience, mainly through the senses. If you want to know whether a new teaching method helps children read, empiricism says: do not just argue about it, go and observe children who use it.

Almost all modern science is empiricist in this broad sense. The disagreements in this debate are about which experiences count. Mainstream psychology counts what can be observed from outside. Indian psychology also counts trained inner experience.

Closest Indian idea perception (pratyaksha) as a means of knowledge. Charvaka is the Indian school closest to strict empiricism.

empiricism in the glossary

Key concept

positivism

Literally

Latin positivus, laid down, given

Positivism is a stronger view. It says that real knowledge comes only from observation and measurement, as in physics, and that statements which cannot be checked in this way are not knowledge at all. In the 1920s a group of philosophers in Vienna developed "logical positivism". They held that a statement is meaningful only if observation could verify it.

This philosophy grew up alongside behaviourism. One of its tools, the operational definitionoperational definitionAn operational definition defines a concept by how it is measured, for example defining anxiety as a score on a particular questionnaire.Indian link lakshana, the defining mark of a thing in Indian logic, though a lakshana is not a measurement.Full entry in the glossaryClose, is still used in every psychology methods course: you define a concept by how you measure it, for example defining "anxiety" as a score on a questionnaire.

Philosophers later rejected logical positivism. Karl Popper and W. V. O. Quine attacked it, and by 1967 the philosopher John Passmore could write that logical positivism "is dead". Rao and Paranjpe (2016, sec. 1.3.1) argue that psychology's methods still rest on it all the same.

Closest Indian idea the Charvaka view that only perception is valid. Most Indian schools reject this and also accept inference, testimony and yogic insight.

positivism in the glossary

One-tailed and two-tailed tests

Mainstream research usually states a prediction in advance, a hypothesis, and tests it with statistics. A statistical test asks whether a result, such as a difference between two groups, is larger than chance alone would easily produce. If it is, the result is called significant.

A one-tailed test is used when the researcher predicts the direction in advance: "students who meditate will score lower on anxiety". Only a difference in that direction counts. A two-tailed test is used when a difference in either direction counts: "students who meditate will score differently". Because both directions count, a two-tailed test needs a larger difference before the result is called significant.

This is standard statistics, taught in any research methods course. The course books on Indian psychology do not discuss it.

Karl PopperKarl PopperAustrian-born philosopher of science who argued that a theory is scientific only if evidence could, in principle, show it to be false.Full entry in the glossaryClose offered a different test for science. A claim is scientific, he said, if evidence could in principle show it to be false.

Key concept

falsifiability

Literally

Latin falsus, false

A claim is falsifiable if you can say what evidence would prove it wrong. "Drinking this tea improves memory" is falsifiable: give some people the tea and some people plain water, test their memory, and the tea may turn out to make no difference.

"Everything happens for a reason" is not falsifiable. Whatever happens, a believer can say there was a reason. No observation could count against it. Popper did not say such claims are worthless. He said they are not science.

Falsifiability is the heart of the debate on this page. Critics ask: what observation could ever show that pure consciousness does not exist? If none could, that claim is not scientific in Popper's sense.

Closest Indian idea none exactly. Indian debate (vada) tested claims against counter-examples, and Nyaya lists types of faulty reasoning (hetvabhasa).

falsifiability in the glossary

One more idea completes the picture. Most scientists today work with an assumption about what is real.

Key concept

materialism

Materialism, also called physicalism, is the view that only matter and physical forces are real. On this view the mind is something the brain does, and consciousness is a product of brain activity. Some materialists go further and call consciousness "epiphenomenal": a by-product, like the noise of an engine, that does no work of its own.

Materialism is not a finding of any one experiment. It is a metaphysical position, an assumption about what exists (see the philosophy and psychology page). Writers on Indian psychology say this assumption is so common in psychology that it is rarely noticed.

Closest Indian idea Charvaka (Lokayata) materialism. Sankhya partly agrees, because it treats the mind as material, but it adds purusha.

materialism in the glossary

Kuhn: what a paradigm is

The word "paradigm" came into the debate through the American historian of science Thomas KuhnThomas KuhnAmerican historian of science (1922 to 1996). His book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) made the word 'paradigm' famous.Full entry in the glossaryClose. His book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was published in 1962.

Key concept

paradigm

Say

pa-ruh-daim

Literally

Greek paradeigma, pattern, example

In Kuhn's sense, a paradigm is the shared framework that a community of scientists works inside. It includes their accepted theories, their methods and instruments, their values, and even their assumptions about what exists. It also includes model examples of good work that students learn to copy.

Think of a cricket team that has always played on one kind of pitch. Its players share a sense of which shots are sensible, which risks are foolish, and what a good innings looks like. They rarely discuss these things, because everyone already agrees. A paradigm works like that for scientists.

Kuhn's key claim was that science does not always grow smoothly. For long periods scientists work inside one paradigm. Then, sometimes, the whole framework is replaced.

Closest Indian idea darshana, a whole 'view' with its own assumptions and methods.

paradigm in the glossary

Two senses of 'paradigm'

In the second edition of his book (1970), Kuhn split the word into two senses. The broad sense, the "disciplinary matrix", is the whole shared framework. The narrow sense, the "exemplar", is a model piece of successful work, such as Newton's Principia, that students copy when they solve new problems. Kuhn called the exemplar "the most novel and least understood aspect" of his book (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Thomas Kuhn").

How a science changes, in Kuhn's account

The stages run in a loop. The last stage becomes the first stage of the next cycle.

1. 1 Normal scienceScientists share one paradigm and solve puzzles inside it, the way you fill in a crossword whose rules you accept.
2. 2 AnomaliesSome results do not fit. At first they are ignored or explained away.
3. 3 CrisisAnomalies pile up. Confidence in the paradigm weakens and rival ideas appear.
4. 4 RevolutionA new paradigm replaces the old one. Rules alone do not force the choice, and some old explanations are lost.
5. 5 New normal scienceThe community works inside the new paradigm, until new anomalies appear.

↺ Back to stage 2 when new anomalies appear.

Source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Thomas Kuhn", summarising Kuhn (1962, 2nd edition 1970).

Two more terms come from Kuhn. A paradigm shiftparadigm shiftA paradigm shift is a deep change in the basic assumptions of a science, such as the move from Newton's physics to Einstein's.Compare No close Indian equivalent. Yuga dharma, the idea that each age needs its own norms, is a loose parallel for social norms.Full entry in the glossaryClose is the change from one paradigm to another, such as the change from Newton's physics to Einstein's. And Kuhn said rival paradigms can be incommensurable, meaning they share no common measure. People inside different paradigms may disagree about which problems matter and what counts as evidence, so they talk past each other. Kuhn stressed that this does not mean they cannot be compared at all.

Does psychology even have a paradigm?

Here is a problem for anyone who talks about psychology's "paradigm shift". Kuhn's model fits a mature science in which almost everyone shares one framework. Psychology has never been like that. Behaviourism, psychoanalysis, cognitive psychology and humanistic psychology have long existed side by side. Kuhn himself denied that psychoanalysis is a science, and doubted that some social sciences could sustain long periods of normal science. Kundan Singh (2014, p. 41), a supporter of Indian psychology, makes the point that psychology already has many competing schools.

The Hungarian-born philosopher Imre LakatosImre Lakatossay: im-ray lak-uh-tosHungarian-born philosopher of science who worked in London. He described science as competing 'research programmes', each with a protected hard core and a testable outer belt.Full entry in the glossaryClose offered a model that fits this situation better. He described science as a contest between several research programmesresearch programmeImre Lakatos's term for a line of research with a protected 'hard core' of basic assumptions and an outer 'protective belt' of hypotheses that are tested and changed.Indian link a darshana, a school with fixed core assumptions and many arguments built around them.Full entry in the glossaryClose. Each programme has a hard core of basic assumptions that its members protect, and a protective belt of more specific hypotheses that are tested and changed when they fail. A programme earns respect by producing new findings.

Rao and Paranjpe (2016, sec. 1.2) use exactly this idea: "scientific progress may be looked at in terms of rival research programs. Indian psychology does offer such programs." The diagram shows what such a programme looks like.

Indian psychology as a research programme

Lakatos's model: an outer belt of hypotheses that can be tested and changed, around a hard core that the programme protects.

Protective belt: specific hypotheses that can be tested

• With practice, the afflictions of the mind (kleshaskleshaक्लेशkleśasay: klay-shuhLiterally: affliction, pain, troubleKleshas are the afflictions of the mind that cause suffering. Yoga names five: ignorance, I-am-ness, attachment, aversion and clinging to life.Western link Close to the patterns of thought and emotion that cause distress in clinical psychology. The difference: the root cause is a mistaken sense of self, not a learned belief.Full entry in the glossaryClose) become weaker.
• A person's mix of the three gunasgunaगुणguṇasay: gu-nuhLiterally: strand, thread; qualityThe gunas are the three qualities that make up nature and mind: sattva (clarity), rajas (activity) and tamas (inertia). Their mix shapes personality.Western link Close to trait or temperament models of personality, such as the Big Five. The difference: the gunas also describe matter, and their balance can change with practice.Full entry in the glossaryClose predicts which kind of yoga suits them.
• Experienced meditators can shut out what the senses report, on purpose.
• Acting without attachment to results (nishkama karmanishkama karmaनिष्काम कर्मniṣkāma karmasay: nish-kaa-muh kuhr-muhLiterally: action without desire (niṣ + kāma + karma)Nishkama karma means doing one's duty without craving its results. The Bhagavad Gita teaches it as a way to act fully while staying calm and free.Western link Close to intrinsic motivation and to focusing on the process rather than the outcome. The difference: it is a spiritual discipline, with action offered as duty or to God.Full entry in the glossaryClose) goes with better wellbeing.

Hard core: assumptions the programme protects

• Pure consciousness exists and is not the same as the mind.
• The mind can be trained by practice.
• Practice can change the knower and lead toward liberation.

The belt hypotheses follow Sedlmeier (2014, pp. 61 to 66) and Pande and Naidu (1992); the core follows Sedlmeier's "metatheory" (2014, p. 60), the background theory the schools share. Rao and Paranjpe (2016, sec. 1.2) say Indian psychology offers "rival research programs" in Lakatos's sense.

Try this

Two classmates (an invented example) argue about Indian psychology. Meera says: 'It is a paradigm shift. Soon it will replace Western psychology, just as Einstein replaced Newton.' Arjun says: 'It cannot be science, because its central claim about pure consciousness can never be proved false.'

Using Kuhn and Lakatos, explain what each classmate gets wrong, and suggest a better description.

Show the reasoning

Meera's claim fits Kuhn's model badly. A Kuhnian revolution needs a mature science with one shared paradigm, a pile of anomalies and a crisis. Psychology has many schools working side by side, and Indian psychology has not shown that it explains what mainstream psychology explains. Rao and Paranjpe themselves say it is not "ready to replace psychology as we know it now".

Arjun is right that the core claim is not falsifiable, but wrong that this makes the whole field unscientific. In Lakatos's model, every research programme protects a hard core that is not tested directly. What matters is whether the protective belt produces testable hypotheses and new findings. A better description is that Indian psychology is a young research programme. Its belt hypotheses can be tested, and its success should be judged by how well they do.

How writers on Indian psychology use the word "paradigm"

The course books use "paradigm" often, and not always in Kuhn's strict sense. Here are the main uses, so you can recognise them.

1. As a hope. Rao and Paranjpe say Indian psychology "has the potential to bring about a paradigm shift". But they add, carefully: "Whether the alternative suggested would truly represent a paradigmatic shift or a simple extension of the current perspective is something that only the future can tell" (Rao and Paranjpe, 2016, opening of ch. 1 and sec. 1.4).
2. As another word for worldview. The editors of the course textbook try to set out "the basic 'paradigm' of the Indian tradition", meaning its deep assumptions about reality (Cornelissen, Misra and Varma, 2014, p. xii). They admit this is "a pretentious undertaking fraught with possibilities of error".
3. As a research framework. Girishwar MisraGirishwar MisraIndian psychologist (born 1951) at Delhi University who studies culture, self, emotion and wellbeing. A co-editor of the course textbook Foundations of Indian Psychology.Full entry in the glossaryClose calls for "a consciousness based paradigm" (2014, p. 133).
4. As an argument against objectivity. Kundan Singh (2014, pp. 40 to 52) uses Kuhn to argue that all psychological knowledge is relative to its paradigm. He then notices that this argument, applied to itself, undermines itself, and uses that problem to argue for knowledge "beyond mind". He admits in a note that Kuhn later distanced himself from such relativist readings.
5. For states of consciousness. The American psychologist Charles Tart (1972) compared a state of consciousness to a paradigm, because both shape what a person perceives and how they judge it.

The fair conclusion is that most of these writers use "paradigm" to mean a worldview or a set of basic assumptions. When you write about the "paradigm debate", say which sense you mean. The worldview page explains what a worldview is.

The two pictures side by side

The table sets out the contrast that writers on Indian psychology draw. Read the column headings carefully. The middle column is mainstream psychology as these writers describe it, and many mainstream psychologists would describe themselves differently.

Two of the rows depend on a distinction between methods.

Key concept

first-person method

A first-person method studies experience from the inside: a person observes their own experience and reports it. Keeping a diary of your moods, or noting what happens in your mind during meditation, are first-person methods.

A third-person methodthird-person methodA third-person method studies people from the outside, by observing and measuring what anyone can see, such as behaviour, test scores or brain activity.Indian link perception and inference (pratyaksha and anumana) used as public means of knowledge.Full entry in the glossaryClose studies a person from the outside, through what anyone can observe: reaction times, brain scans, questionnaire scores, behaviour. Most mainstream research uses third-person methods.

Between them sit second-person methods, in which a trained interviewer helps a person describe their experience precisely. Rao (2008, pp. 8 to 9) links these three to the three classical stages of learning, shravana, manana, nididhyasanashravana, manana, nididhyasanaश्रवण, मनन, निदिध्यासनśravaṇa, manana, nididhyāsanasay: shruh-vuh-nuh, muh-nuh-nuh, ni-di-dhyaa-suh-nuhLiterally: hearing, reflecting, deep meditationThree stages of learning in the Upanishads and Vedanta: hearing the teaching, thinking it through, and meditating on it until it is realised.Western link Like moving from a lecture, to discussion and critical thinking, to practice that changes you. The difference: the last stage is said to change the learner's being, not only their knowledge.Full entry in the glossaryClose: hearing, reflecting and meditative realisation (explained below). In the Indian tradition the guruguruगुरुsay: gu-ruLiterally: heavy, weighty; hence venerableA guru is a teacher, especially a spiritual teacher who guides a student in knowledge and practice. The guru is deeply respected in Indian tradition.Western link Close to a mentor or a therapist. The difference: the guru teaches by example and personal realisation, and the relationship includes devotion and service.Full entry in the glossaryClose plays the second-person role, checking a student's reports.

Closest Indian idea nididhyasana, meditative realisation, which Rao treats as the first-person stage of knowing; and yogic perception (yogi pratyaksha).

first-person method in the glossary

Sources for the table

The editors of Cornelissen, Misra and Varma (2014, pp. xiii to xv) describe mainstream psychology as having "a strong physicalist bias, an absolute faith in the ordinary waking consciousness and a total reliance on objective methods". They write that in the Indian view "the most fundamental reality is not matter, but spirit", and that "sophisticated first person methods are the natural first choice". Other rows follow Rao and Paranjpe (2016, secs 1.1.3 to 1.4 and Table 1.1), Rao (2008, pp. 6 to 9) and Misra (2014, p. 123). The row on whose mind is studied follows Cornelissen, Misra and Varma (2011, p. 129), who write that in the "nomothetic tradition", the search for general laws that hold across people, "individual differences were 'errors'". Rao and Paranjpe (2016, sec. 1.3.1) add that the Indian aim of spiritual uplift "implies focus on individual cases".

Psychology has two names for the approaches behind the row "Whose mind is studied?". The German philosopher Wilhelm Windelband coined them in 1894, and the psychologist Gordon Allport (1937) brought them into psychology. Nomothetic research looks for general laws across many people. Idiographic research studies one person in depth. Indian psychology leans toward the second, because its main aim is to change one person. The Foundations editors say it is "built on self-knowledge rather than on knowledge of statistically generalized others" (Cornelissen, Misra and Varma, 2014, p. xviii). It keeps "a constant awareness that each individual is ultimately unique", which it expresses in the idea of svabhavasvabhavaस्वभावsvabhāvasay: svuh-bhaa-vuhLiterally: own being; own nature (sva, own + bhāva, being)Svabhava means a person's own nature: the inborn qualities and tendencies that make each individual different from every other.Western link Close to temperament and character. The idea also fits the idiographic approach, which studies one person in depth. The difference: svabhava is often seen as carried over from past lives, and as pointing to one's proper duty.Full entry in the glossaryClose, each person's own nature (p. xix).

Three cautions keep this table honest.

• The mainstream column is too simple. Peter Sedlmeier, a German psychologist who is sympathetic to Indian psychology, points out that "subjective experiences still play an important role even in mainstream psychology", in interviews, qualitative research and verbal reports (Sedlmeier, 2014, p. 68). The editors themselves call their description "a simplification". The row on individual differences fits experimental psychology best: a whole branch, differential psychology, specialises in measuring how people differ in intelligence and personality (Cornelissen, Misra and Varma, 2011, p. 129).
• The Indian column is also too simple. It mainly describes Advaita VedantaAdvaita Vedantaअद्वैत वेदान्तAdvaita Vedāntasay: uhd-vai-tuh vay-daan-tuhLiterally: not-two; non-dualAdvaita Vedanta teaches that the true self (atman) and ultimate reality (Brahman) are one. The feeling of being a separate person comes from ignorance.Western link Often called monism. Advaita writers prefer 'non-dualism': reality is not two, but it is not described as one countable thing either.Full entry in the glossaryClose and the paired schools of SankhyaSankhyaसांख्यSāṃkhyasay: saang-khyuhLiterally: enumeration, countingSankhya explains everything with two realities: pure consciousness (purusha) and nature (prakriti). In Sankhya, the mind belongs to nature, not to consciousness.Western link Close to mind-body dualism, as in Descartes. The key difference: Sankhya puts the mind on the material side; only pure consciousness is separate.Full entry in the glossaryClose and YogaYogaयोगsay: yo-guhLiterally: joining, yoking; discipline; from yuj-, to yokeYoga is both a school of philosophy and a set of practices that train body, breath and mind. Its classic text is Patanjali's Yoga Sutra.Western link Often compared with mind-body or mindfulness-based interventions. The key difference: classical Yoga is a full ethical and spiritual path, not only a technique for health.Full entry in the glossaryClose. India also had the materialist CharvakaCharvakaचार्वाकCārvākasay: chaar-vaa-kuhLiterally: uncertain (one guess is 'sweet-tongued', caru + vac); the other name, Lokayata, means 'directed at the world' (loka + ayata)Charvaka, also called Lokayata, is India's materialist school. It held that only matter is real and that perception is the only sure way of knowing.Western link Close to materialism and empiricism in Western philosophy. Like modern physicalism, it explains the mind as a product of the body.Full entry in the glossaryClose school, which accepted only perception as knowledge. The NyayaNyayaन्यायNyāyasay: nyaa-yuhLiterally: rule, method, standard; 'that into which a thing goes back' (ni + i-, to go)Nyaya is the Indian school of logic and of the theory of knowledge. It studies how we can know things correctly and how to argue well.Western link Close to logic and epistemology in Western philosophy. The differences: Nyaya also aims at liberation, and its inference always includes an example from experience.Full entry in the glossaryClose and VaisheshikaVaisheshikaवैशेषिकVaiśeṣikasay: vai-shay-shi-kuhLiterally: concerned with particulars (viśeṣa)Vaisheshika is the school that sorts everything that exists into basic categories. It taught that physical things are made of tiny atoms.Western link Close to Greek atomism and to Aristotle's list of categories. Unlike Greek atomism, it counts selves and minds as separate substances.Full entry in the glossaryClose schools describe ordinary mental life in ways close to Western psychology. Buddhism denies a permanent self altogether.
• Neither column says the other is false. Rao and Paranjpe (2016, sec. 1.4) write: "It would be factually incorrect to say that current psychological knowledge is false."

India's own theory of evidence

The Indian schools did not ignore the question of evidence. They argued about it for centuries.

New Sanskrit word

pramana प्रमाण

Written

pramāṇa

Say

pruh-maa-nuh

Literally

means of right knowledge; measure (pra + mā-, to measure)

A pramana is a valid means of knowing: a reliable route to true knowledge. The schools disagreed about how many pramanas there are, but three are the most common. pratyakshapratyakshaप्रत्यक्षpratyakṣasay: pruh-tyuhk-shuhLiterally: before the eyes (prati + akṣa)Pratyaksha is perception: knowledge that comes directly through the senses. All Indian schools accept it as a valid means of knowledge.Western link Close to 'perception' in psychology; the two stages resemble the step from sensation to recognition. Yogic perception has no accepted match in Western science.Full entry in the glossaryClose is perception, knowing through the senses. anumanaanumanaअनुमानanumānasay: uh-nu-maa-nuhLiterally: measuring after (anu + māna)Anumana is inference: knowing something you cannot see from a sign you can see. The classic example: there is smoke on the hill, so there is fire.Western link Close to inference in logic, mixing deductive and inductive reasoning. The difference: the Indian form always includes a real example from experience.Full entry in the glossaryClose is inference, as when you see smoke on a hill and know there is fire. shabdashabdaशब्दśabdasay: shuhb-duhLiterally: sound, wordShabda is knowledge from words: the testimony of a reliable person or of scripture. It is how we learn most things we cannot check ourselves.Western link Close to 'testimony' in modern epistemology, which studies how we trust others' reports. Science accepts expert testimony, but not scripture, as evidence.Full entry in the glossaryClose is reliable testimony, the word of a trustworthy person or of scripture.

The Charvaka school accepted only perception. Buddhists accepted perception and inference. Many other schools added testimony and sometimes more.

Girishwar Misra (2014, pp. 122 and 132) argues that Indian theories of knowledge are "more rigorous and inclusive" than the Western empirical approach, because they also debated whether knowledge is valid in itself or needs outside checking. Unit 2 of the course looks at the pramanas in detail.

Nearest Western idea Close to a 'source of knowledge' in epistemology. Indian lists include testimony and, in some schools, yogic perception, which Western science does not count.

pramana in the glossary

Methods of knowing in the tradition

The pramanas answer one question: which routes to knowledge can be trusted? The schools also asked a second question, closer to psychology: how can a person study the mind itself? This part gives a short overview. Unit 2 studies these methods in depth.

Inner and outer knowing. Rao and Paranjpe (2016, sec. 1.3.2) write: "Observations may be internal and experiential or external and shared." Science prefers the external kind, because anyone can repeat it. But in psychology, they add, "The person is both the object and the subject of the study." The Indian schools widened what counts as perception. Girishwar Misra (2014, p. 127) writes that perception in their sense "subsumes the whole range of common sensory perception, introspection, as well as intellectual and mystical intuition." Rao and Paranjpe (2016, sec. 1.3.4) go further: once meditation removes inner bias, they argue, experience "becomes objective in a significant sense". Western psychology's own attempt, trained introspection, is described on the philosophy page.

Many writers on Indian psychology treat direct experience, anubhavaanubhavaअनुभवsay: uh-nu-bhuh-vuhLiterally: direct experienceAnubhava means direct personal experience. In Vedanta it is the experience that completes study, and Shankara placed it above tradition: no scripture can make fire cool.Western link Close to what William James called 'knowledge of acquaintance': knowing a thing by meeting it, not by being told about it. Also close to first-person experience in phenomenology. The difference: in Vedanta the highest anubhava is said to change the knower.Full entry in the glossaryClose, as the final test. The editors of the course textbook note that even ShankaraShankaraशङ्करŚaṅkarasay: shuhng-kuh-ruhIndian philosopher of the 8th century CE, the most influential teacher of Advaita Vedanta, which holds that the true self and ultimate reality are one.Full entry in the glossaryClose "puts personal experience (anubhava) above tradition" (Cornelissen, Misra and Varma, 2014, p. xiv). Sharf's criticism, further down this page, asks how far the classical schools really did this.

Self-study. The practice of svadhyayasvadhyayaस्वाध्यायsvādhyāyasay: svaa-dhyaa-yuhLiterally: one's own study; recitation (sva + adhyāya)Svadhyaya means self-study: study of sacred texts, and reflection on oneself in their light. It is one of the five niyamas of Yoga.Western link Close to reflective practice, journaling and introspection. The difference: the reflection is guided by sacred texts and aims at spiritual growth.Full entry in the glossaryClose, self-study, is one of the five niyamasniyamaनियमsay: ni-yuh-muhLiterally: rule, observanceThe niyamas are five personal observances, the second limb of Yoga: purity, contentment, disciplined effort, self-study and surrender to Ishvara.Western link Close to self-care, healthy habits and values-based living in positive psychology. The difference: they are steps on a spiritual path and include devotion.Full entry in the glossaryClose, the personal observances of the Yoga SutraYoga Sutraयोगसूत्रYogasūtrasay: yo-guh soo-truhLiterally: threads (aphorisms) on yogaThe Yoga Sutra is the classic text of the Yoga school, by Patanjali. In about 195 short lines it explains how to calm and master the mind.Western link Close to a manual of attention training and self-regulation. The key difference: its goal is the freedom of pure consciousness (purusha), not only better mental health.Full entry in the glossaryClose (2.32). The editors of the course books define it as "a technique of reading the scripture for oneself in order to realize its deeper significance" (Cornelissen, Misra and Varma, 2011, glossary). The reader studies a text and, in its light, studies themselves.

Hearing, reflecting, realising. Advaita Vedanta sets out the most detailed method of study.

New Sanskrit word

shravana, manana, nididhyasana श्रवण, मनन, निदिध्यासन

Written

śravaṇa, manana, nididhyāsana

Say

shruh-vuh-nuh, muh-nuh-nuh, ni-di-dhyaa-suh-nuh

Literally

hearing, reflecting, deep meditation

Advaita prescribes what Paranjpe and Rao (2008, p. 276) call "a relentless critical inquiry into the true nature of the Self". It has three steps, which go back to the Brihadaranyaka UpanishadUpanishadउपनिषद्Upaniṣadsay: u-puh-ni-shuhdLiterally: sitting down near (a teacher); upa + ni + sadThe Upanishads are philosophical texts at the end of the Vedas. They ask what the self is and how it relates to the whole of reality.Western link Sometimes compared to Plato's dialogues, because they teach through questions and conversation. The key difference: their aim is direct experience of the self, not only a sound argument.Full entry in the glossaryClose (2.4.5 and 4.5.6). shravanashravanaश्रवणśravaṇasay: shruh-vuh-nuhLiterally: hearingThe first step of knowing in Vedanta: hearing or studying a teaching. Rao links it to learning from observation, the way science learns.Western link Close to learning by instruction or by observation. The difference: it is only the first of three steps, and the later steps change the knower, not only what the knower knows.Full entry in the glossaryClose is listening carefully to the teaching, "no different from the usual form of studying such as listening to lectures or reading books". mananamananaमननsay: muh-nuh-nuhLiterally: thinking over, reflection; from man-, to thinkThe second step of knowing in Vedanta: thinking a teaching through, testing it with reason until doubts are removed.Western link Close to critical thinking and reflection. The difference: the aim is to remove doubt so that deep meditation can follow, not to reach a final answer by reasoning alone.Full entry in the glossaryClose is reflecting on what was heard, again and again, until every doubt about it is answered. nididhyasananididhyasanaनिदिध्यासनnididhyāsanasay: ni-di-dhyaa-suh-nuhLiterally: deep, steady meditation; from dhyai-, to meditateThe third step of knowing in Vedanta: deep, steady meditation in which the truth that was heard and understood becomes one's own direct experience.Western link No close Western match. It is nearer to contemplative practice than to any research method; supporters see it as a trained first-person method.Full entry in the glossaryClose is contemplation so complete that no other thought enters the mind.

An invented example shows the steps. A student hears in a lecture that anger passes if you do not feed it. That is shravana. At home she argues with the idea, raises every objection she can find, and checks it against her own life. That is manana. Over months of practice she watches anger rise and fall, until she no longer needs to remember the idea, because she lives it. That is nididhyasana.

Rao and Paranjpe (2016, sec. 1.1.3) say the three steps "roughly correspond to the three levels of knowing": observation, understanding and realisation. At the first two levels, "Knowing and being are dissociated. One may know that something is untrue, but still may act on it". Only in realisation do knowing and being "blend into each other". Psychologists meet this gap all the time: a smoker can know that smoking kills and still smoke. The three steps are a theory of how knowledge becomes a change in the person.

Nearest Western idea Like moving from a lecture, to discussion and critical thinking, to practice that changes you. The difference: the last stage is said to change the learner's being, not only their knowledge.

shravana, manana, nididhyasana in the glossary

The middle step is where reasoning comes in. In manana, "Not a single doubt or objection should remain unexamined", and Shankara "stresses that this activity involves the use of reason (tarka)" (Paranjpe and Rao, 2008, p. 276).

Reasoning that tests a supposition. Tarkatarkaतर्कsay: tuhr-kuhLiterally: reasoning, suppositionTarka means reasoning. In Indian logic it tests a supposition by following it until it meets a contradiction, and it helps inference by clearing doubt.Western link Close to reductio ad absurdum and to testing a hypothesis by its consequences. The difference: tarka proves nothing alone; it serves an inference or a teaching already received.Full entry in the glossaryClose means reasoning. In the narrow sense, it tests a supposition by following it until it runs into a contradiction. For example, someone doubts that a smoking hill has fire. Tarka answers: suppose there were no fire; then there would be no smoke; but there is smoke; so the supposition fails. Misra (2014, p. 122) lists faults that Nyaya reasoning must be checked for: self-dependence (A rests on A), mutual dependence (A rests on B and B on A), circular reasoning through a longer chain, and infinite regress. "My memory is reliable, because I remember that it has always been reliable" (an invented example) shows the fault of self-dependence. Tarka is not a means of knowledge by itself. The scholar Pandey gives it only a "subordinate role" within inference, anumanaanumanaअनुमानanumānasay: uh-nu-maa-nuhLiterally: measuring after (anu + māna)Anumana is inference: knowing something you cannot see from a sign you can see. The classic example: there is smoke on the hill, so there is fire.Western link Close to inference in logic, mixing deductive and inductive reasoning. The difference: the Indian form always includes a real example from experience.Full entry in the glossaryClose (quoted in Misra, 2014, p. 128). It clears away doubt, so that an inference, or a teaching already heard, can stand. In manana, reasoning comes before meditation, not instead of it.

Perception beyond the senses. Several schools claim that intense meditation opens a new kind of perception, yogi pratyakshayogi pratyakshaयोगिप्रत्यक्षyogipratyakṣasay: yo-gi pruh-tyuhk-shuhLiterally: perception of a yogiYogi pratyaksha is the direct perception that several Indian schools say advanced meditators gain: knowing things that the ordinary senses cannot reach.Western link Nearest to the trained perception of experts, and to William James's 'noetic quality' of mystical states, which feel like knowledge. The difference: yogi pratyaksha claims to reach objects outside the senses altogether.Full entry in the glossaryClose, which your notes may call supersensible experience. Describing the Buddhist version, Rao and Paranjpe (2016, sec. 4.1.5) call it "nonsensuous awareness brought about by intense practice of concentration and meditation". Nyaya-Vaisheshika and Jainism accept it too (Jha, 2008, p. 296; Rao and Paranjpe, 2016, sec. 4.1.6). The Jain list includes clairvoyance (seeing distant or hidden things), knowing other minds, and omniscience (knowing everything). The Buddhist logician Dharmakirti, who accepted it, granted that vividness alone proves nothing. People gripped by fear, sorrow or passion also "vividly see nonexistent things as real". So he held that a meditative vision is valid only when its object is real (Bhatt, 2008, p. 334). A critic asks how anyone can tell which case they are in. For modern psychology, yogi pratyaksha is a claim these schools make, not an established finding. It belongs with the claims about psi in the section on evidence below.

True for the person who experiences it. If inner experience is the test, who checks the experience? Rao and Paranjpe (2016, sec. 1.3.4) answer in two parts. For a realised person, "a pure conscious experience is intrinsically authentic; it does not require external validation": it vouches for itself. For people still on the path, the guruguruगुरुsay: gu-ruLiterally: heavy, weighty; hence venerableA guru is a teacher, especially a spiritual teacher who guides a student in knowledge and practice. The guru is deeply respected in Indian tradition.Western link Close to a mentor or a therapist. The difference: the guru teaches by example and personal realisation, and the relationship includes devotion and service.Full entry in the glossaryClose checks their reports, which gives what the authors call "in-group inter-subject validity". In plain words, the experience is true for the person, and a small group trained in the same way can confirm it.

This is both a strength and a problem. The strength is that the person's own experience counts as evidence. The problem is that conviction is not proof. A person can feel certain and be wrong, and a check inside one tradition is not a public check that anyone can make. The criticism of "elitism" below makes this point.

The schools also argued about whether any knowledge validates itself. MimamsaMimamsaमीमांसाMīmāṃsāsay: mee-maam-saaLiterally: desire to reflect; inquiryMimamsa is the school that interprets the Vedas, mainly their rules for ritual and duty (dharma). Its founding text is Jaimini's Mimamsa Sutra.Western link Close to hermeneutics, the theory of interpretation, applied to sacred rules. It also resembles legal reasoning about how to read a law.Full entry in the glossaryClose and VedantaVedantaवेदान्तVedāntasay: vay-daan-tuhLiterally: end of the VedaVedanta is the family of schools based on the Upanishads. They ask how the self (atman) relates to ultimate reality (Brahman).Western link Sometimes compared with idealist philosophy, which holds that mind or spirit is basic. The key difference: Vedanta claims this can be known by direct experience, not only by argument.Full entry in the glossaryClose held that knowledge is valid by itself, a view called svatah pramanyasvatah pramanyaस्वतःप्रामाण्यsvataḥ-prāmāṇyasay: svuh-tuh praa-maan-yuhLiterally: validity from itselfSvatah pramanya is the view that knowledge is valid by itself, from the very conditions that produce it. Its opposite, paratah pramanya, says knowledge needs outside checking.Western link No exact Western match. Science works more like paratah pramanya: a result counts only after others have checked it.Full entry in the glossaryClose: "knowledge is known from the knowledge itself". This does not mean that every belief is true. In Advaita, as the abadhita bridge above showed, knowledge counts as valid only so long as nothing contradicts it. Nyaya-Vaisheshika held the opposite view, paratah pramanya: knowledge "needs external validity". Buddhists held that validity "is nothing but practical efficiency" (Misra, 2014, p. 122). Mainstream science works more like the second view: a finding counts only after others have checked it.

Two more beliefs frame these methods. Your notes list both under method because they set its limits: what counts as evidence depends on the knower's state, and what a knower brings to an inquiry is traced to more than one life. First, what a person can know is said to depend on their state of consciousness: the four states on the reality page are the classic map, and Tart's state-specific sciences, below, are a modern version. Second, many schools hold that the mind carries traces from earlier lives: Yoga's chittachittaचित्तcittasay: chit-tuhLiterally: that which is noticed; mind (cit-, to perceive)Chitta is the whole field of the mind in Yoga, including thoughts, feelings and stored impressions. Yoga aims to calm its movements.Western link Close to 'the mind' as a whole, including the unconscious store of memories. The difference: chitta is still material; consciousness (purusha) gives it awareness.Full entry in the glossaryClose contains "instinctual tendencies inherited from previous lives" (Rao and Paranjpe, 2016, sec. 4.1.2). The worldview page explains rebirth (samsarasamsaraसंसारsaṃsārasay: suhm-saa-ruhLiterally: wandering, flowing onSamsara is the cycle of birth, death and rebirth that beings go through, driven by karma. It can also mean worldly life in general.Western link Close to 'reincarnation' or 'transmigration'. Mainstream psychology does not accept rebirth; a few researchers, such as Ian Stevenson, studied reports of past lives.Full entry in the glossaryClose).

The case for Indian psychology as a science

Supporters do not all make the same case. Here are the main voices, from the most cautious to the boldest.

K. Ramakrishna Rao. K. Ramakrishna RaoK. Ramakrishna RaoIndian psychologist and philosopher (1932 to 2021). A leader of the Indian psychology movement and co-author of the course textbook Psychology in the Indian Tradition.Full entry in the glossaryClose writes: "Indian psychology is a science, science in its less restricted sense" (Rao, 2008, p. 8). It is observational, and some of it can be studied by experiment. He admits that consciousness itself cannot be observed directly. But its effects on a person can: "The person experiencing a pure conscious state is not the same as one who has no such experience" (Rao, 2008, p. 10). So a researcher can study changes in people who practise, without first proving the metaphysics.

Peter Sedlmeier. Sedlmeier (2014, pp. 53 to 60) accepts the mainstream scientific method in full. He sees "at present no alternative" to it. He agrees that the overall theory of Indian psychology cannot be falsified, but argues that each school offers hypotheses that can. His examples include: Can trained yogis shut out what their senses report? Do the afflictions of the mind (kleshaskleshaक्लेशkleśasay: klay-shuhLiterally: affliction, pain, troubleKleshas are the afflictions of the mind that cause suffering. Yoga names five: ignorance, I-am-ness, attachment, aversion and clinging to life.Western link Close to the patterns of thought and emotion that cause distress in clinical psychology. The difference: the root cause is a mistaken sense of self, not a learned belief.Full entry in the glossaryClose) weaken with practice? Does a person's mix of the gunasgunaगुणguṇasay: gu-nuhLiterally: strand, thread; qualityThe gunas are the three qualities that make up nature and mind: sattva (clarity), rajas (activity) and tamas (inertia). Their mix shapes personality.Western link Close to trait or temperament models of personality, such as the Big Five. The difference: the gunas also describe matter, and their balance can change with practice.Full entry in the glossaryClose predict which kind of yoga suits them? He recommends second-person methods, with interviewers who have their own experience of practice.

William Braud. Braud (2014, pp. 84 to 88) proposes "integral inquiry", in which the researcher is prepared as an instrument through practice, and experiences can be studied "simply as experiences", without deciding what causes them.

Matthijs Cornelissen. Matthijs CornelissenMatthijs CornelissenDutch-born doctor and psychologist living in India since 1976. He founded the Indian Psychology Institute in Pondicherry and co-edited Foundations of Indian Psychology.Full entry in the glossaryClose argues that for inner states, "What we need there is not objectivity, but reliable subjectivity" (2014, p. 112). Yoga, in his view, trains the observer, as mathematics and instruments train the physicist. The deepest kind of knowing he calls knowledge by identityknowledge by identityKnowledge by identity means knowing something by becoming one with it, not by observing it from outside. Sri Aurobindo described it; Cornelissen and Kundan Singh build on it.Compare Close to William James's 'knowledge of acquaintance', direct knowing from experience. The difference: the Indian idea claims full identity with what is known.Full entry in the glossaryClose: knowing something by becoming one with it.

Kundan Singh. Singh is the boldest. He argues that "psychology needs to be a science of consciousness as opposed to a science of mind and behaviour" (2014, p. 50). In such a science, the researcher's own consciousness must change.

Charles Tart. Tart (1972; restated in his own Handbook chapter, 2008, pp. 580 to 585) proposed "state-specific sciences": observers trained to work inside a particular state of consciousness, who check each other's reports, while keeping science's basic rules of observation, theory, prediction and open communication.

The criticisms, and the best replies

A fair student account gives each criticism in its strongest form, then the best reply. Some of the sharpest criticisms come from inside the field.

Criticism from inside the field

• Revivalism. Durganand SinhaDurganand SinhaIndian psychologist (1922 to 1998) at Allahabad. He led the call to 'indigenize' psychology in India, so that it fits Indian life and problems.Full entry in the glossaryClose warned in 1994 against revivalismrevivalismPraising old ideas because they are old, and rejecting modern science. Durganand Sinha used the word for an uncritical return to ancient Indian texts.Compare Compare: separation in John Berry's model of acculturation, where a group keeps its own culture and rejects the other. Sinha applied Berry's model to systems of knowledge rather than to people.Full entry in the glossaryClose, which he described as "antiscientism, esoterism, and an attitude that whatever is ancient and traditional is per se good". He criticised "cosmetic indigenization", which mentions ancient concepts only to add local colour. And he rejected an East against West split: "Science which seeks truth cannot be so compartmentalized by national or continental limits."
• One school speaking for all of India. L. S. S. Manickam (2008, p. 496) warns: "Theorists need to ensure that a concept, representative of a particular school of thought, is not presented as an 'Indian' thought." He also names an "import-manufacture effect", claiming that Western ideas were already in the ancient texts, and an "India-made foreign effect", reducing yoga to relaxation or behaviour therapy.
• National pride. Rao and Paranjpe (2016, sec. 1.2) criticise an earlier book that claimed Indian psychology "surpasses" Western psychology: "Such sanctimonious chest beating is seldom conducive to promoting Indian psychology as a scientific discipline."
• Falsification. Sedlmeier (2014, p. 60) states plainly that, for most Indian scholars, "the metatheory itself is not open to falsification". The metatheory is the background theory that all the schools share, such as the claim that consciousness is basic.
• Elitism. Cornelissen (2014, p. 113) knows that if only advanced practitioners can check inner knowledge, this could look like "a reprehensible form of occult elitism". He argues it need not be, because the checking is done by "equally or better qualified observers", as in any field that needs long training.
• A double standard. Dalal (2014, p. 22) notes a strange difference in how the same ideas are received: "So what is 'spiritual psychology' for Western academicians becomes 'revivalism' for Indian academicians!"

Criticism from outside the field

Robert Sharf (1995). Sharf, a scholar of Buddhism, argues that modern writers have overstated the role of meditative experience in Buddhist traditions. The stress on experience comes largely from 20th-century reform movements. Even schools that value meditative states did not treat them as the test of doctrine. If his point also applies to the Hindu schools, which is this guide's extension of his argument, then calling Indian traditions "experiential sciences" may be a modern reading. Reply. Rao and Paranjpe (2016, sec. 1.3.4) do not rest knowledge on private experience alone. They stress long training, texts and the teacher's check.

Richard King (1999). In Orientalism and Religion, King examines how the image of India as the spiritual "mystic East" was shaped, partly by colonial scholarship and partly by later Indian reformers who placed Advaita at the centre of Hinduism. Advaita is one school of VedantaVedantaवेदान्तVedāntasay: vay-daan-tuhLiterally: end of the VedaVedanta is the family of schools based on the Upanishads. They ask how the self (atman) relates to ultimate reality (Brahman).Western link Sometimes compared with idealist philosophy, which holds that mind or spirit is basic. The key difference: Vedanta claims this can be known by direct experience, not only by argument.Full entry in the glossaryClose. This is a form of OrientalismOrientalismOrientalism is the Western habit of picturing 'the East' as exotic, spiritual, timeless or backward. The critic Edward Said named and criticised it.Full entry in the glossaryClose. An Indian psychology built mainly on Advaita may repeat that selective picture. Reply. The course books include chapters on Jaina, Buddhist, Nyaya-Vaisheshika, Ayurvedic, Sufi and Sikh thought, and Rao (2008, p. 3) writes: "There is no chauvinist intent in using the phrase Indian psychology." But Rao and Paranjpe still make Yoga and Advaita "the foundation base" of their model, so the criticism partly stands.

Meera Nanda (2003). In Prophets Facing Backward, Nanda argues that when scholars blur the line between modern science and "other ways of knowing", they make it easier for Hindu nationalists, political movements that define India as a Hindu nation, to claim a superior "Vedic science". Arguments that use Kuhn to weaken scientific objectivity, as Kundan Singh's does, can be used this way whatever their authors intend. Reply. Rao and Paranjpe reject national pride as a motive, Sinha rejects nationalist thinking, and Sedlmeier insists on falsification. Pickering (2011, p. 107) adds that "postmodernism does not reject science". But the course books never discuss Hindu nationalism directly. That is a gap.

Sunil Bhatia (2002). Bhatia, writing in History of Psychology, shows how Euro-American psychology built stereotyped images of "natives", and how Indian psychologists sometimes took these images on. He is not against Indian perspectives. But he warns that "it would similarly be a mistake to conceptualize indigenous psychology as referring to one dominant set of psychological beliefs and practices" (p. 394). A decolonised psychology, he argues, must be plural. It follows that it should also study Indians living today, not only classical texts. Reply. Rao and Paranjpe separate Indian psychology from "the psychology of Indians" on purpose, and claim its ideas apply to all humans. Durganand Sinha's own work studied poverty and present-day social problems. The tension remains.

Van Dam and colleagues (2018). In "Mind the hype", a group of meditation researchers argue that "mindfulness" is poorly defined, that many studies lack proper control groups, and that claims about brain changes and benefits are often overstated. Reply. Writers on Indian psychology largely agree. Rao and Paranjpe (2016, sec. 8.4) admit that "much of the earlier literature on meditation is methodologically deficient and conceptually confused". Other researchers published replies to Van Dam's paper, which shows that this argument is taking place inside science, not against it.

Five questions in the debate

Where these arguments come from

The rows draw on Sedlmeier (2014, pp. 56 to 72), Rao and Paranjpe (2016, secs 1.1.2 to 1.3.4), Paranjpe (2014, p. 237), Manickam (2008, pp. 493 to 496), Rao (2008, pp. 1 to 3) and Sinha (2015, ch. 3). In the six course books, Dalit perspectives are barely mentioned and Adivasi perspectives almost never.

What the evidence shows, and what it cannot show

Some Indian-derived ideas have been studied with mainstream methods. Most of this work is about meditation, and it has grown into a field of its own.

Key concept

contemplative science

Contemplative science studies meditation and other inner practices with scientific methods. It uses brain imaging, physiological measures and questionnaires, and increasingly it treats trained meditators as skilled observers of their own minds.

Its roots include early studies of yogis and Zen monks in the 1960s, Jon Kabat-ZinnJon Kabat-ZinnAmerican scientist who in 1979 opened a stress reduction clinic at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. Its course became Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR).Full entry in the glossaryClose's mindfulness programme from 1979, and Francisco VarelaFrancisco VarelaChilean neuroscientist and philosopher who proposed neurophenomenology (1996): training people to report their experience precisely and combining their reports with brain data.Full entry in the glossaryClose's neurophenomenologyneurophenomenologysay: nyoo-ro-fi-nom-i-nol-uh-jeeNeurophenomenology is Francisco Varela's method (1996) of joining careful first-person reports from trained observers with measurements of the brain.Indian link the yogic training of attention, which Indian psychology writers see as a way to make inner observation reliable.Full entry in the glossaryClose from 1996. It is the place where mainstream psychology and Indian psychology meet most often.

Closest Indian idea adhyatma vidya, and yogic perception (yogi pratyaksha) as a trained way of knowing.

contemplative science in the glossary

Meditation. The largest meta-analysismeta-analysisA meta-analysis combines the results of many studies on the same question with statistics, to estimate how large an effect is on average.Full entry in the glossaryClose of meditation in psychology combined 163 studies and found a medium-sized average effect. The effects were largest on emotional and relationship measures. They were smaller, but still positive, on attention, memory and other thinking skills. A review of 47 controlled trials in medicine found moderate evidence that meditation programmes reduce anxiety, depression and pain. It found no evidence that meditation works better than other active treatments, such as exercise or medicines.

Statistics note: the two reviews

Sedlmeier and colleagues (2012), Psychological Bulletin 138(6), 1139 to 1171: 163 studies, average correlation r = .28 (r = .27 in peer-reviewed studies), a medium effect by usual conventions. Goyal and colleagues (2014), JAMA Internal Medicine: 47 randomised controlled trials with 3,515 participants; moderate-strength evidence for anxiety, depression and pain; low-strength evidence for stress and quality of life; no evidence of superiority to active treatments.

Measuring Indian concepts. At least eight personality inventories have been built on the three gunas (Manickam, 2008, p. 497). One example is Wolf's (1999) Vedic Personality Inventory. Rao and Paranjpe (2016, sec. 5.14) warn that some guna scales were checked only against other guna scales, which "courts the danger of both, or all, of the two or more tests being equally wrong".

Testing ideas from texts. Pande and Naidu (1992) turned the Bhagavad GitaBhagavad Gitaभगवद्गीताBhagavad Gītāsay: bhuh-guh-vuhd gee-taaLiterally: song of the Blessed LordThe Bhagavad Gita is a 700-verse dialogue inside the Mahabharata. Krishna advises the warrior Arjuna, who is in crisis before a battle.Western link Often read as a counselling text: a person in crisis talks with a guide. Unlike most Western therapy, the guide also gives moral and spiritual teaching.Full entry in the glossaryClose's teaching of nishkama karmanishkama karmaनिष्काम कर्मniṣkāma karmasay: nish-kaa-muh kuhr-muhLiterally: action without desire (niṣ + kāma + karma)Nishkama karma means doing one's duty without craving its results. The Bhagavad Gita teaches it as a way to act fully while staying calm and free.Western link Close to intrinsic motivation and to focusing on the process rather than the outcome. The difference: it is a spiritual discipline, with action offered as duty or to God.Full entry in the glossaryClose, action without attachment to its results, into a measure of anasaktianasaktiअनासक्तिanāsaktisay: uh-naa-suhk-tiLiterally: non-attachment (an + āsakti, clinging)Anasakti means non-attachment: acting and enjoying life without clinging to things or to results. Indian psychologists study it as a source of calm and happiness.Western link Close to 'non-attachment' in mindfulness research, and to acceptance in acceptance-based therapies. The difference: it is rooted in duty (dharma) and service, not only in managing emotion.Full entry in the glossaryClose (non-attachment) and tested hypotheses about it (Rao and Paranjpe, 2016, sec. 1.3.2).

One study, two spellings

Rao and Paranjpe (2016, sec. 1.3.2) cite this study as Naidu and Pandey (1992). It is the same paper: Pande and Naidu (1992), "Anasakti and health: A study of non-attachment", in the journal Psychology and Developing Societies. The perspectives and worldview pages describe its findings.

So some things are now well supported: some practices have real, moderate benefits, and some Indian concepts can be measured. But three limits matter just as much.

1. The research does not test the metaphysics. Meditation could reduce anxiety for purely bodily reasons. Rao and Paranjpe (2016, sec. 8.4) note that "one could still argue that such voluntary control is due to the self-organizing capabilities of the brain itself".
2. It mostly tests techniques taken out of their setting. Studies usually teach a short technique to beginners and measure Western outcomes such as blood pressure or anxiety. The editors of the course textbook point out that these outcomes "have little to do with what would have been considered relevant in the culture of origin, such as equanimity, compassion, wisdom and detachment" (2014, p. xv).
3. A practice that works does not prove the theory behind it. Sedlmeier (2014, p. 72) compares this with research on psychotherapy: showing that a therapy helps does not show that the theory behind it is true.

A fair verdict

"Is Indian psychology a science?" has no single answer, because Indian psychology is not one kind of claim. It helps to sort its claims into three levels.

At the first two levels, Indian psychology can be studied as science in the ordinary sense, and is being studied. At the third level it makes claims that science, as now practised, cannot settle. Lakatos's model describes this well: a research programme with an untested core and a testable belt. Whether the programme succeeds depends on what its belt produces, not on the age or prestige of its sources.

Why this matters for a psychologist

Judging programmes and products. Schools, companies and hospitals in India now offer yoga and meditation programmes, often with scientific-sounding claims. A psychologist should ask which level a claim is at, what kind of study supports it, and whether the study had a proper comparison group.

Designing research. If you study an Indian concept for a dissertation, the debate gives you a plan: state your hypotheses from a named school, measure them with validated tools, consider second-person interviews for experience, and do not claim that your results prove the metaphysics.

Working with clients. A counsellor who offers an Indian-derived practice should describe the evidence honestly: what is known to help, for what, and what remains belief.

Writing exam answers. Define your terms, use Lakatos as well as Kuhn, give one inside critic and one outside critic with the best reply to each, and separate practices, concepts and metaphysics.

Try this

A company in Bengaluru (an invented example) plans a 'consciousness-based leadership' course for its managers. The brochure says: 'Based on the ancient science of yoga, proven by modern research to expand consciousness, improve decisions and awaken latent powers.' The HR head asks you, as the company's psychologist, whether the claims are scientific.

Sort the brochure's claims into the three levels on this page, say what evidence could and could not support each, and suggest how the company could test the course fairly.

Show the reasoning

"Improve decisions" is a practice-level claim and can be tested. The company could randomly assign some managers to the course and others to a comparison course of the same length, such as general leadership training, and measure decision quality before and after. Without an active comparison group, any gain might come from attention, novelty or expectation. The research on meditation so far finds moderate effects on anxiety and mood, and smaller effects on attention, memory and thinking, so the claim should be modest.

"Expand consciousness" is unclear. If it means something measurable, such as better attention or awareness of one's own reactions, it can be turned into a hypothesis with an operational definition. If it means touching pure consciousness, it is a metaphysical claim that no study of managers could prove. "Awaken latent powers" sounds like the siddhis, and points toward parapsychology, which mainstream psychology does not accept as established. A fair advice note would say: keep the practice, test it properly, and remove the claims that research cannot support.