CHAPTER 4

1 So when one is looking for genuine Indian psychology, one finds more experts in the philosophy departments than in the psychology departments. In ancient India (as in ancient Europe by the way), there was no division between philosophy, psychology (and religion).

2 Note that the term ‘method’ has a different meaning here—yoga is a collection of methods to achieve some ends (liberation) whereas research methods are used to find out about something (for example, about the specific effects of yoga).

3 As all meta-models, the above meta-theory of Indian psychology is heavily simplified and leaves out specific details that adherents of a given theory, which might be subsumed under the meta-model, think of as most important. Just one example: In Sri Aurobindo’s Integral Yoga, the division would be between the several gradations of mind and the supermind, which, in the vertical scale of that specific system precedes the three-leveled saccidānanda (Aurobindo 2001, p. 280).

4 Although here one might object that at least some of the six orthodox systems deal with different parts of the Vedic scriptures.

5 There is even evidence that the Yoga-Sutras might have been heavily influenced by Buddhism (Whiteman, 1993).

6 In fact, in German textbooks, the definitions of what psychology is about still often contain both the terms ‘observations’ and ‘experiences’ (Ponkratz, 1984). If one looks at its usage in the literature, the term ‘observation’ mostly used in American textbooks does meanwhile cover subjective experiences as well.

7 Note that while there is some correspondence between quantitative vs. qualitative and third-person vs. first- and second-person methods, third-person methods can also be applied to qualitative data and first- as well as second-person methods can in principle be used for quantitative data.

8 As outlined above, one prerequisite for the interviewer is at least some experience in the practice of yoga.

9 In the case of psychoanalysis, the question behind the research that established its effectiveness was motivated by the question whether psychotherapy was effective at all and whether different approaches differed in their effectiveness (for example, Smith & Glass, 1977).