Introduction
:
That
philosophy and
psychology are
interrelated
and
were
most
intimately
so
at
one
time not
long
ago
is a
well-attested
fact.
However
when
the
so
called
experimental
method
developed,
which
was
experimental
in
the
sense
of
the
physical
and
chemical
sciences,
it
was
considered
that
the
psychology of
introspective
analysis
was
arm-chair
psychology and
speculative
in
the
sense
of
merely
theoretical
generalisations.
The
introspective
method
was
criticised
as
not
so
very
reliable
as
the
objective
experimental
methods.
However
there
is a
large
amount
of
truth in
the
so
called
empirical
method
and
empiricism,
and
true
enough
the
empirical
psychology that
led
up
to
the
empirical
philosophies
was
rather
poor
stuff
as
psychology.
Indian
philosophy claimed
from
the
beginning
to
develop
its
metaphysics or
assume
its
metaphysics
on
well-grounded
facts
of
experience.
Experience
however
was
something
that
included
not
merely
the
physical
sensory
types
of
experience
nor
the
rational
processes
of
deduction
and
inductive
types
of
reasoning
nor
their
fallacies and
illusions,
nor
even
analogies
from
experience
and
presumptive
types
of
inference,
it
includes
such
types
of
experience
that
go
by
the
name
of
creative
imagination
and
direct
revelations
that
are
not
merely
extra
sensory
but
also
extra-mental.
That
they
should
have
included
a
close
study
of
the
processes
of
not
only
the
waking
consciousness but
also
the
dream-work
and
deep
sleep
that
carries
on
deep
in
one’s
personality spiritual awarenesses
that
sometimes
come
to
the
surface
as
insights
and
intuitions
leading
up
to
solutions
of
the
most
unexpected
of
problems
of
life
and
invention
is
another
important
piece
of
work,
that
shows
that
their
concern
was
not
with
any
one
aspect
of
life
as
such
but
of
the
human
person
both
as
he
is
and
as
his
inner
urge
indicates.
Thus
the
whole
of
human
personality
both
in
this
embodied
organic
life
and
even
as
it
turns
out
to
be
his
disembodied
nature came
within
the
field
of
his
Experience
and
knowledge.
Thus
it
can
well
be
said
that
Indian
Philosophy
depended
ultimately
on
the
psychology of
human
personality
and
his
world
was
determined
in a
sense
by
the
psychological.
Thus
we
can
even
say
that
Indian
Philosophy and
psychology recognized
different
levels
of
psychology or
experience,
and
found
also
that
though
perfectly
capable
of
being
treated
as
autonomous
spheres
within
certain
limits
they
leaned
on
the
higher
levels
of
experience
for
their
own
explanation.
These
higher
levels
of
experience
were
a
prori
assumptions
to
that
level
but
were
capable
of
becoming
empirically
realised
or
proved
at
the
higher
level.
Thus
metaphysics was
not
something
that
remains
utterly
unverifiable
and
beyond,
but
something
that
is
capable
of
being
experienced
by
one
who
is
prepared
to
make
the
experiment
or
undertake
the
investigation.
The
method
of
psychical
knowledge is
unfortunately
available
either
by
report
or
by
introspective
meditation.
Here
again
report
by
any
experienced
or
trained
introspecter
is
better
than
by
an
untrained
observer
of
one’s
own
processes.
What
external
observation
or
even
the
study
of
internal
secretions
or
processes
of
the
man
can
give
ultimately
do
not
show
the
psychological
nature of
the
human
person.
Therefore
aptavacans
(expert
statement)
such
as
that
of
the
Veda or
Agama have
a
profound
place
leading
upto
abhyasa
or
dhyana which
are
not
mere
repetition
of
mantras or
even
sitting
in
certain
poses
or
trying
to
concentrate
on a
point
of
pratika or
icon
or
idol,
either
mentally
hypostatized
or
physically
installed.
Dhyana
is
meditation,
introspective
analysis
of
the
inner
states
watching
of
how
thoughts
arise
and
sustain
themselves
and
disappear,
or
how
vasanas or
emotional
tendencies
or
desires
arise
and
seek
fulfilment
and
disappear.
Indian
Philosophy and
Psychology had
a
more
definitive
aim
which
made
many
think
that
they
were
more
earnest
about
salvation and
freedom than
knowledge of
the
human
personality.
They
however
knew
that
unless
one
knew
oneself
fully
and
completely
there
is
no
possibility
of
attaining
liberation fully.
Knowledge
is
absolutely
necessary.
It
is
both
practical
and
theoretical
knowledge
of
the
whole
person
and
its
present
condition
as
also
his
future
hope
that
leads
to
ultimate explanations.
It
is
true
that
man
seeks
freedom,
and
it
is a
freedom
that
is
being
more
and
more
expanded
to
cover
every
type
of
freedom.
This
we
know
from
recent
history
of
political
developments.
Indian
Philosophy
asked
for
a
freedom
that
is
real
freedom
from
fall
into
lower
levels
of
evolution or
even
a
freedom
to
higher
lines
of
evolution.
This
undoubtedly
depends
upon
two
factors,
personal
aspiration
to
grow
and
evolution
into
higher
personality
and
possible
and
recognized
descent of
the
Higher
levels
of
consciousness into
one’s
personal
life
and
being
capable
of
leading
one
up
to
them.
Thus
Indian
Philosophy and
Psychology gathers
into
itself
the
whole
range
of
living
both
personal
and
social
and
collective,
religious
and
transcendental,
all
of
which
demands
full
knowledge of
all
that
one
is
and
shall
be.
Therefore
to a
serious
student
of
Indian
Psychology
philosophy
is
the
culmination
of
psychological
data
gathered
from
various
levels
of
being
and
awareness,
stimulations,
urges
and
responses,
physical,
vital,
mental
and
psychical.
Another
important
face
to
be
noted
in
respect
of
the
study
of
Indian
Psychology
that
it
more
and
more
emphasizes
the
normal
rather
than
the
psychopathological
and
abnormal.
The
so
called
para-psychological
data
referred
to
as
yogic,
are
really
possible
to
the
normal
man,
and
indeed
occurring
to
him,
only
if
he
cares
to
pay
heed
to
them.
Yoga is
for
life and
normal
life.
That
a
peculiar
emphasis
on
its
liberating
power
should
make
it
appear
as
if
it
is
intended
for
abnormal
persons
or
only
some
kinds
of
persons
is
rather
unfortunate.
The
psychology of
the
normal
man
includes
the
whole
life
of
man
in
society.
Neither
the
ascetical
mood
nor
the
hedonistic
epicurean
gives
the
general
norm
of
the
individual
in
society.
Normal
psychology takes
into
account
all
that
goes
to
form
his
total
life.
Indian
Psychology along
with
this
philosophy of
total
understanding
thus
canvas
a
large
integral
picture
of
man
and
his
serious
significance.
Thus
Indian
Philosophy claimed
to
be a
darsana,
a
seeing
or
perception of
the
total
Reality including
the
individual,
nature and
God.
For
each
of
these
a
peculiar
or
special
pramana or
source
of
instrument
of
knowledge was
prescribed
so
to
speak,
and
it
was
also
instructed
that
moral
preparation
is
specifically
necessary
for
careful
self-observation
or
observation
of
nature,
without
committing
errors
of
perception
or
observation.
A
whole
fields
enquiry
into
perceptual
fallacies
or
illusions
and
their
causes
was
opened
up.
It
is
clear
that
Indian
Psychology
has
put
forward
the
normal
as
the
special
field
and
not
the
abnormal
or
sub-normal
to
which
modern
psychology owes
its
most
spectacular
successes
as
in
Psycho-analysis.
Thus
the
prejudice
against
Indian
Philosophy that
it
is
metaphysical,
that
it
is
armchair
or
speculative
psychology,
woven
out
of
the
celebrations
of
yogis
and
so
on,
has
to
be
shed
if a
proper
appraisal
of
the
contributions
of
Indian
Psychology,
has
to
be
made.
The
yogi is
no
abnormal
type
of
person.
Indeed
one
of
the
most
fruitful
fields
of
personality psychology was
worked
out
in
respect
of
ability
and
quality patterns
in
conduct
and
typological
enquiries
in
manifold
fields
of
applied
sociology.
The
Bhagavad
Gita and
the
Dharma sastra
made
it a
very
important
matter
in
the
appraisal
of
human
nature
and
social
conduct.
The
normal
type
has
to
be
discerned
in
the
context
of
the
society
and
development
and
work.
That
the
Indian
Psychologists
did
make
use
of
clinical
and
pathological
material
is
also
known
from
the
works
of
Ayurveda (the
science
of
medicine).
We
have
large
amount
of
material
which
shows
how
closely
the
concepts
of
Matter of
living
matter
had
influenced
the
general
nature
of
medicine.
Thus
we
can
say
that
almost
all
concepts
of
Indian
Philosophy have
their
origin in
psychological
investigations
and
in a
sense
this
homeo-centric
procedure
had
helped
the
building
up
of
systems
of
philosophy,
which
have
unfortunately
turned
to
what
we
may
call
systematization
of
results
from
the
standpoint
of
logical
coherency
or
dogmatic
authority
or
in
the
interests
of a
particular
point
of
view.
That
is
why
we
find
that
darsanas
though
their
fundamentals
reveal
psychological
understanding,
being
incomplete
in
themselves
in
some
respects
had
ended
up
in
mutual
self-criticism
logically
or
ontologically.
Provided
we
can
even
now
classify
the
same,
we
will
be
able
to
arrive
at a
large
volume
of
interesting
psychological
materials.
Most
interesting
results
are
today
being
studied
in
the
Yoga Institute
at
Poona.
But
we
can
get
a
first
hand
account
of
psychic
material
from
the
voluminous
encyclopedic
writings
of
Sri
Aurobindo,
Swami
Vivekananda,
Sri
Ramachandra of
Shahjahanpur
who
affirm
other
psychic
centres
and
forces
than
what
physiological
material
modern
sciences
present.
Ancient
Indian
Psychology because
of
its
synoptic
perceptions
and
intuitions
has
developed
a
highly
technical
set
of
terms
to
convey
the
special
features
of
experience
at
different
levels.
And
this
attested
to
by
the
number
of
so-called
synonyms
of
the
processes
called
consciousness which
is
said
to
function
at
least
in a
threefold
manner
in
its
embodied
or
personality,
such
as
intellection
or
cognitivity,
(sattva in
terms
of
its
body),
conation
(rajas in
terms
of
its
body)
and
affection
(tamas in
terms
of
its
body).
These
cognitive
processes
operate
through
others
and
produce
several
distinctive
cognitive
processes.
Indeed
we
have
also
to
consider
the
vast
amount
of
literature
which
has
been
called
the
scriptural
testimony of
the
Veda and
Agama which
bears
psychological
or
adhyatmika knowledge as
recently
Sri
Aurobindo has
been
at
great
pains
to
show.
We
have
to
recognize
that
the
critical
psychological
understanding
of
the
several
avenues
of
knowledge
is
necessary
preparation
for
a
proper
logical
evaluation
of
them.
Indeed
Indian
Psychology
has
been
at
great
pains
to
show
that
knowledge
or
experience
is
not
capable
of
beings
limited
to
any
sensory
or
extra-sensory
or
imaginal
perceptions
or
the
intuition yet
generalising
the
sensory.
Four
fundamental
forms
of
knowing
are
available
to
man
and
one
is
supremely
fitted
to
know
all
of
them.
It
is
not
a
little
to
the
logicians
that
owe
at
once
a
clear
restatement
of
their
limitations
as
instruments
or
real
knowledge
of
Reality and
of
oneself
but
also
one
is
to
confess
the
extraordinary
confusion
that
has
come
into
being
in
the
field
of
Indian
Psychology.
It
is
not
perhaps
germane
to
this
paper
to
list
the
causes
of
this
confusion,
but
the
most
important
may
be
mentioned,
it
is
the
hypothesis
of
degrees
of
reality
and
the
power
conferred
for
the
higher
so-called
knowledge
to ‘sublate’
or
set
aside
the
lower
cognitions.
Thus
perception is
said
to
be
rolled
out
by
inference or
meditate
knowledge,
and
both
by
Sruti or
intuitive
knowledge.
Therefore
in
each
field
of
enquiry
whether
it
be
cognition,
including
perception,
sensory,
extra-sensory
or
super-sensory
or
Conation
that
embraces
the
unconscious,
subconscient,
inconscient,
conscient and
superconscient,
or
affection,
unconsciousness,
inconscient,
subconscient
or
conscient
and
superconscient
in
Aesthetics,
should
be
exhaustive
and
minute
in
the
whole
range
of
knowing
as
given
by
the
Indian
philosophers,
psychologists,
medical
writers
and
aestheticians.
Philological
competence
alone
may
not
be
sufficient
but
psychological
insights
which
will
grasp
the
full
meaning
of
psychological
concepts
will
be
most
helpful.
A
serious
research
project
in
this
direction
must
be
sponsored
by
the
Psychological
Societies
in
India.
It
will
be
interesting
for
example
to
trace
the
growth
of
the
verbs
as
applied
to
several
behavioural
patterns.
The
word
samkalpa itself
owes
its
origin to
the
word
root
Kalpa :
to
make,
to
imagine
a
conational
term
so
to
speak.
Thus
knowledge is
said
to
be
somewhat
of a
sam-kalpa
or
willing
or
imagination,
a
meaning
we
find
expressed
to
its
fullest
in
the
concept
of
Reality as
imagination.
(Yoga Vasista
is a
work
which
works
out
this
thesis
so
to
speak
to
its
absurdity).
The
first
perception or
sensation
of
an
object
is
said
to
be
nirvikalpaka
pratyaksa.
Vi-kalpa
will
be
projective
or
defining
of
the
perceived,
a
term
that
expresses
a
differentiation
(vivarta
:
varta
or
vivrtti).
Thus
we
find
that
sa-vikalpa
is a
transformed
or
modified
or
projected
or
individualised
or
personalized
externality
or
definition
is
such
a
process
of
modification
of
the
perceived
undifferentiated
sensation.
A
whole
theory
of
metaphysics seems
to
be
involved
in
these
usages
which
vary
from
system
to
system.
As
psychologists
our
concern
is
not
to
read
these
from
the
standpoint
of
the
philosophical
pundit
but
take
all
views
and
examine
them.
Another
line
of
enquiry
is
opened
up
when
we
take
up
the
word
‘uha’
:
several
meanings
which
include
observing,
change
modification,
guess
conjecture,
determination,
attributing,
filling
or
supplying
an
ellipse
are
given.
Several
words
have
arisen
from
this
basis
word
such
as
Sam-uha,
Apoha :
Moha.
Each
one
of
them
has
now
got
a
meaning
that
has
lost
its
parent
meaning.
To
recover
the
yoga-meaning
is
one
important
function
of
the
Indian
Psychologist.
Several
wonderful
texts
have
been
interpreted
unpsychologically
because
they
have
felt
that
the
philosophical
truth was
to
be
kept
in
mind
and
others
do
not
matter.
Sam-uha
means
to
be
perplexed,
infatuated,
and
apoha
means
according
to
some
forgetfulness,
or
negative
reasoning
or
removal
of
doubt,
and
in
the
Gita where
it
is
stated
that
the
Lord
is
smriti
jnana and
apoha;
it
is
sometimes
explained
as
the
knowledge of
the
future,
by
the
context
or
(should
it
be
the
knowledge
that
is
got
by
the
revelation
which
occurs
by
the
removal
of
the
lid
that
covers
the
face
of
truth
signifying
the
meaning
given
in
the
Upanishad
‘apa-vrinu
:
uncover).
Equally
interesting
is
the
conception
of
Ma-uha
or
wrong
imagination
or
that
which
causes
bewilderment,
which
is
the
cause
of
delution.
This
has
been
said
to
be
caused
by
desire,
attachment to
objects.
The
above
examples
are
taken
at
random
in
order
to
show
that
a
large
area
of
special
enquiry
in
Indian
Psychology is
yet
available
not
only
in
the
fields
of
Para-or
Supernormal
Psychology
or
Yoga,
but
even
in
the
ordinary
fields
of
enquiry.
It
should
not
be
forgotten
however
that
the
general
climate
of
Indian
Thinking
by
and
large
is
devoted
to
knowing
himself
as
out-growing
his
present
embodied
state
and
looking
forward
to a
life of
liberation not
only
here
but
beyond.
Thus
we
have
to
arrive
at
different
kinds
of
psychology devoted
to
different
fields
of
behaviour
both
individual,
and
social,
and
perhaps
political,
and
above
all
the
spiritual which
transcends
in
its
demand
on
human
incentive
and
in
its
strength
all
the
rest.
*
*
Paper
discussed
at
the
Madras
Psychology Conference.
