COMMENTARY

Positive Psychology and Indian Psychology: Birdsof the Same Feather

Kiran Kumar Salagame

Received: 12 August 2013 /Accepted: 15 August 2013# National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India 2014

Abstract Positive psychology and Indian psychology sharesimilar concerns regarding human life. But Indian psychologyhas more to offer towards our understanding of happi-ness and well-being than what Positive psychology canat this point of time, because of latter’s paradigmaticlimitations. This commentary draws attention to certainshortcomings of the target article: (a) in presenting thecontemporary Positive psychology perspective; (b) inconceptualizing IP with reference to its epistemologicalposition; (c) and in equating certain concepts from PPand IP and their implications.

Keywords Indian Psychology . Yogi . Sadhaka . Tapasvi .

Chitta vrtti nirodha . Samadhi . Stithaprajna

“Positive psychology and Indian psychology –birds of thesame feather” was the title of my invited presentation at the5th International Positive Psychology Summit held at GallupOrganization, in Washington DC in October 2006. I am gladthat Rao’s paper resonates the theme I had chosen earlier, tohighlight that both Positive Psychology (PP) and IndianPsychology (IP) share similar concerns. It will be mutuallybeneficial for PP and IP to take cognizance of what each has tooffer. So I agree with the general tenor of this paper and mostimportantly with the meta theoretical framework proposed forIP. Hence, I don’t comment on what the paper has to say aboutwhat IP is and is not. In this commentary my observations arelimited to those points which are pertinent to bring together IPand PP.

“Indian psychology has a strong theoretical base; but itlacks solid empirical support for its concepts and theo-ries. Positive psychology has begun with a considerableempirical base; but it is weak in theory that could bringthe diverse data into a cohesive framework for sustainedand programmatic research.”

While I agree that PP has considerable empirical base andis groping for an adequate theoretical framework, I don’t agreethat IP lacks solid empirical support. If the author meansempirical support only that which is derived from third personmethodology, then what about all the experiences and exper-iments of the thousands of adepts (Yogis, Sādhakas, Tapasvis)who tread the path of ego-transcendence in several centuriesthat has sustained Indian perspectives. Are they not empiricalfor “pure consciousness”? After all the theoretical base of IP isnot armchair intellectual speculation. They are grounded inpramānas, accepted means of obtaining valid knowledge. Wecannot graft a meta –theoretical framework of IP onto amethodology (epistemology) derived from naturalphilosophy.

Therefore, attempting to equate “flow” with “Samadhi” islike comparing oranges and apples. The state of flow de-scribed by Csikszentmihalyi is essentially in the context ofactive engagement in a worldly task that implies ability andchallenge therefore involving chitta vrtti, mental activity.Patanjali yoga on the other hand is aimed at chitta vrttinirodha, i.e., cessation of the modifications of all kinds ofmental activity whose aim is altogether different as practicei.e. to transcend. Therefore, the two constructs developed intwo entirely different contexts are not comparable and pittingone against the other is doing injustice to both, though theremay be some underlying similarities in the states described bythe respective authors. I would prefer to keep them apart andunderstand each in its context. The same applies to Shravana,Manana, and Nididhyāsana.

K. K. Salagame (*)Department of Studies in Psychology, University of Mysore,Manasa Gangotri, Mysore -570006, Indiae-mail: kikusk@gmail.com

Psychol StudDOI 10.1007/s12646-014-0258-6

“Further, positive psychology should go beyond hedo-nistic pleasures to define happiness. There is the need tocombine material prosperity with moral sensitivity. Theemphasis on hedonistic happiness is inconsistent withthe true purport of positive psychology. Without analtruistic ethical base, PP is likely to go astray andbecome irrelevant as a philosophy of positivehappiness.”

In making such a statement the author seems to haveselectively focused only on that literature in PPwhich is relatedto what is now well known in the field as Hedonia and hasreviewed only subjective well-being (SWB) research of Dinerand associates. Also the whole argument seems to have beentailored to project what author thinks as an alternative modelrooted in the notion of altruism and ego-transcendence,which he substantiates drawing material from M.K.Gandhi and Swami Vivekananda. As he states, “the veryconstruct of happiness has taken a materialistic rather thana non-materialistic turn.” This seems one sided.

To be fair to the contemporary researchers, as early as 1989Carol Ryff came out with the concept of psychological well-being (PWB) (Ryff 1989a), which highlighted positive psy-chological functioning and human development and she wasinfluenced by humanistic psychology, which is now discussedas an instance of eudemonic approach. Further, “very early onin the research Ryff and Keyes (1995) identified that ‘theabsence of theory-based formulations of well-being is puz-zling’ (pp. 719–720)” (Dodge, Daly, Huyton, & Sanders,2012). That prompted alternative construal of happiness interms of non-materialistic goals, drawing inspiration ultimate-ly from Aristotle’s emphasis on the development of virtues,widely discussed as Eudemonia as contrasted with Hedonia.

There are also studies relating altruism to well-being andhealth (Midlarsky and Kahana 2007); and also to subjectivewell-being (Pareek and Jain 2012), which show that as long asit is not overwhelming altruism certainly brings a positivesense of well-being. Therefore, altruism and ego-transcendence need necessarily a unique contribution as analternative model from the IP point of view.

Despite the differences in the hedonic and eudemonicapproaches, most researchers now believe that wellbeing is amulti-dimensional construct (e.g., Diener, 2009; Michaelson,Abdallah, Steuer, Thompson, &Marks, 2009; Stiglitz, Sen, &Fitoussi 2009 - cited in Dodge, Daly, Huyton, & Sanders,2012) and that the two approaches to the study of happinessand well-being are not mutually contradictory (Kashdan et al.2008; Kristja´nsson 2010). Even with regard to the measure-ment of happiness thinking has progressed from consideringmomentary states of happiness as in experiential samplingprocedure (ESP) to durability of happiness (Dambrun et al.2012). In view of the above I just wish to point out that thepaper is not doing justice either to PP or to IP.

IP can certainly enlarge the scope of PP in defining well-being. Indian thinkers did understand well-being and happi-ness at the individual, collective and transcendental level(Salagame 2003, 2004). Further, if PP and clinical psychologyare viewed as representing sukha and dukha, Indian traditionshave addressed both of them abundantly and have sought toreconcile these opposites and go beyond them to experience alasting sense of well-being. Many researchers have addressedthese issues theoretically and empirically in the modern sense(Anand et al. 2001; Dalal and Misra 2006; Misra 2009;Mohan et al. 2004a; Mohan et al. 2004b; Naidu and Pande1999; Palsane and Lam 1996; Salagame 2002; Salagame2006a, b; Salagame 2012; Shinde 2001, 2002; Shukla 2000;Singh and Misra 2000). So there is scope for building a broadbased framework of IP that incorporates the contemporaryconcerns of PP.

Martin Seligman spoke of ‘pleasure life’, ‘meaningful life’and ‘engaged life’ as possible sources of well-being andconsidered ‘full life’ as one involving all the three of them(Seligman, 2002). Indian thinkers went beyond to include thetranscendent life that incorporates what Seligman called fulllife. For example, a Vedic mantra speaks of living a long life100 years with all sensory faculties intact. Within the Indiantradition the intrinsic nature or quality of happiness isconsidered to be the same whether it is associated withpure hedonic, engaged or meaningful or transcendentlife (Salagame 2012). But what differentiates the IPfrom PP is its emphasis on the source of happiness and well-being as non-contingent on anything external to self. Theultimate source is within, but humans perceive it as externaland go after them as explained in the characteristics of aStithaprajna in Bhagavad Gita.

References

Anand, J., Srivastava, A., & Dalal, A. K. (2001). Where suffering endsand healing begins. Psychological Studies, 46, 114–126.

Dalal, A. K., & Misra, G. (2006). Psychology of health and well-being:some emerging perspectives. Psychological Studies, 51, 91–104.

Dambrun, M., Ricard, M., Després, G., Drelon, E., Gibelin, E., Gibelin,M., Loubeyre, L., Py, D., Delpy, A., Garibbo, C., Bray, E., Lac, G.,& Michaux, O. (2012). Measuring happiness: from fluctuatinghappiness to authentic–durable happiness. Frontiers in Psychology.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00016.

Diener, E. (2009). Subjective well-being. In E. Diener (Ed.), The scienceof well-being (pp. 11–58): New York: Spring.

Dodge, R., Daly, A., Huyton, J., & Sanders, L. (2012). The challenge ofdefining wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2, 222–235.doi:10.5502/ijw.v2i3.4.

Kashdan, T. B., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. A. (2008). Reconsideringhappiness: the costs of distinguishing between hedonics andeudemonia. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 219–233.

Kristja´nsson, K. (2010). Positive psychology, happiness, and virtue: thee troublesome conceptual issues. Review of General Psychology, 14,296–310.

Psychol Stud

Michaelson, J., Abdallah, S., Steuer, N., Thompson, S., & Marks,N. (2009). National accounts of well-being: Bringing realwealth onto the balance sheet. London: New EconomicsFoundation.

Midlarsky, E., & Kahana, E. (2007). Altruism, well-being and mentalhealth in late life. In S. G. Post (Ed.), Altruism and health—perspec-tives from empirical research (pp.56–69). New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Misra, G. (2009). Self and well-being. Psychological Studies, 54, 85–86.Mohan, Y., Mohan, K. K., Roy, G., Basu, S., & Viranjini, G. (2004a).

Spiritual well-being: an empirical study with yogic perspectives.Journal of Indian Psychology, 22, 41–52.

Mohan, K. K., Prasad, V. S., & Rao, P. V. K. (2004b). Effectiveness ofspiritually based lifestyle change programme on well-being. Journalof Indian Psychology, 22, 6–13.

Naidu, R. K., & Pande, N. (1999). Anāsakti: the Indian vision of potentialhuman transcendence beyond mechanistic motivations. In G. Misra(Ed.), Psychological perspectives on stress and health (pp. 85–89).New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company.

Palsane, M. N., & Lam, D. J. (1996). Stress and coping from traditionalIndian and Chinese perspectives. Psychology and DevelopingSocieties, 8, 29–53.

Pareek, S., & Jain, M. (2012). Subjective well-being in relation toaltruism and forgiveness among school going adolescents.International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences,2012(2), 138–141. doi:10.5923/j.ijpbs.20120205.02.

Ryff, C. D. (1989a). Beyond Ponce De Leon and life satisfaction: newdirections in the quest of successful aging. International Journal ofDevelopment, 12, 35–55.

Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,719–727.

Salagame, K. K. K. (2002). Some inputs from India for the developmentof positive psychology. poster presentation at the 1st InternationalSummit on Positive Psychology. Washington: Gallup Organization.

Salagame, K. K. K. (2003). An Indian conception of well-being. In J.Henry (Ed.), European positive psychology proceedings (pp.73–80).Leicester: British Psychological Society.

Salagame, K. K. K. (2004). Perspectives on well-being in the Indiantradition. Journal of Indian Psychology, 22, 63–72.

Salagame, K. K. K. (2006a). The role of spirituality in attaining well-being: approach of Sanātana Dharma. In A. D. Fave (Ed.),Dimensions of well-being. research and intervention (pp. 538–551). Milano: Franco Angeli.

Salagame, K. K. K. (2006b). Happiness and well-being in Indian tradi-tion. Psychological Studies, 51, 105–112.

Salagame, K. K. K. (2012). Well-being from the Hindu/Sanātana Dharmaperspective In. In S. A. David, I. Boniwaell, & A. C. Ayers (Eds.),The Oxford handbook of happiness (pp. 371–383). Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Seligman, M. E. P (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positivepsychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfilment. London:Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Shinde, V. R. (2001). Spiritual and material health associated withswādhyāyee and nonswādhyāyee families.Behavioral Scientist, 2, 3–10.

Shinde, V. R. (2002). Emotional maturity in swādhyāyee youths associ-ated with divine brain trust and non-swādhyāyee youths. BehavioralScientist, 3, 81–90.

Shukla, W. (2000). Body health, paganism and faith. PsychologicalStudies, 45, 131–135.

Singh, J. K., &Misra, G. (2000). Understanding contentment in everydaylife. I.P.R. Special Millennium Issue, 55, 113–124.

Stiglitz, J., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). Report by the commission onthe measurement of economic performance and social progress.

Psychol Stud