Interesting opening, Vinod Rawal , thanks.

It is not so much an Indian or any other ancient wisdom that enhances Positive Psychology (PP) as PP is already present in our system as humans since human beings started to perceive their perception, starting to understand thinking and the effects on your body.

The Indian part of the world has had a load of people visiting and coming back with even more concepts around the 70's which certainly encouraged a new stream of thinking about thinking: psychology boomed after that.

Neuro science (certainly the very readable research results from Antonio Damassio and Jaak Panksepp, highly recommended) pinpointed the structure of thought, emotions and feelings within us, it did not create it, just realised it.

That is all we do within the field: we realise, not realize concepts.

I'm not sure what separates Indian Psychology from fundamental worldwide psychology as we all look at the structure of thinking within an organism, not the social behaviour within a specific part of the world. Of course, social behaviour is far more explainable and with repeatable proof than the direct experiences of a single person.

If this I that expresses itself here and looks at it's thought machinery, the awareness can only discover an option generator which shines it's light on the reality and truth in front of it, it never is able to present this I with the reality, it can only use imagination, pictures and words as its space and tools to tell me something about what it perceives and reports back to me based on my past experiences mixed with the conditioning this I has received over the years.

Due to the accumulation of thoughts, because I let them accumulate through giving them my attention, or actually the lack of attention control to consciously let these thoughts pass my accumulation restrictive fence, they will trigger my body into emotions which, in their turn, trigger my feelings which feedback into my thought generator to come up with more of the same: the story and certainly the storyline starts to unfold, causing an inescapable invisible prison around me so it must be true.

Once the thoughts are causing emotions and feelings, the attention control barrier is totally gone as thought has become in its avalanche state and emotions have overtaking common sense in this I fully.

The above is scientifically proven by Antonio Damasio's research and penned down in "The Feeling of what Happens", high recommended.

When our conditioning starts, at a very young age, in our education and growing up in a lost society, our attention control is put in a deep sleep mode and your authority is solely based on what the outside defines is true and real.

We even give our authority wilfully away to whomever is at a higher status, wearing a uniform or has a stronger facial expression: warning eyes looking directly at you that doom will be upon you if you try to take your authority back.

Positive Psychology can only be achieved when your behaviour and thought system is fully in line with your personal self which is highly unusual if conditioning is affecting your basic foundation.

To be able to operate fully as yourself, thought and certainly thought control must be within your full authority again. This is what awakening is all about, nothing fancy and achievable for everyone. Enlightenment is only explaining that life will be so much lighter after you take your attention control back into your own hands, relying solely on the internal referencing, the main catalyst for Positive Psychology.

The tension that prevents Positive Psychology within yourself to develop is mainly caused by the imagination who you are which is not in sync with the reality that you are. As long as there is tension between these two, there is no tranquillity and no space to reach positivity.

Thought must go: this I you think you are, must leave for the I you are to be able to flourish.

The synergy that is required to enhance Positive Psychology even further is only possible in a free flowing synchronicity where you row with the river, not against it. To see the synchronicity in front of you, you need synergy. Otherwise you shrug it off as it does not fit in to your projection, thinking things out.

Intuition and operating from your internally chosen and convinced gut feeling again, can only flourish when you finally deal with this sabotaging structure of thought intervening with the reality within you. Thought needs to go.

Thoughts are options, our educational system (world wide, not only in specific countries) unfortunately highlights the essence of thought and external referencing far too much which means we start to believe that: not from our own direct experience but because we are told that that is the road to success, it is not.

Coming back to the ancient tradition you match up with Indian Psychology: of course, old Indian Vedic scriptures match up with the Delphi one-liner: Know Yourself. Then you will find out that I must go for I to flourish: leave the imagination and illusions out of your system, they cannot give you the reality, peace and positivity you are looking for.

I is what? find out for yourself, study yourself but leave thought out of the equation.

Who is this I that is looking at what it perceives?

Surely other countries must have (had) the exact same experiences although not penned down on paper or other old material: to comprehend your system of thinking things out and the effect this has on your body, is required to control the attention within you again.

Perceiving without intention, just raw and unbiased as it comes into your system via your senses, is eradicating thought at its core and not let it have its hands on your perception prior to doing something with it. Let thoughts come and go, they are just options.

To perceive without thought is to look without trying to grab, to classify what you see as classification can only be within the space of your previous experiences which is your past. To look with an intent is to look within your old, past boundaries, going around in circles, not leaving your invisible prison.

To perceive new and fresh, every single moment, here and now, is to trust you gut feeling again that the outside, nature and this Life support system out there, has no malicious intent whatsoever to you, it supports you, full on.

Only the human beings that operate fully and rely only on their thought producing controlled system will have a possible malicious intent because of the tension between who they think they are and who they really are: fully lost in their imagination.

These thinking Human Becomings never find what they are looking for as thought is an option generating machine within us, options to the reality in front of us, never the reality itself. They look for relieve in the wrong space: imagination and illusion. Relief and certainly the end of suffering lies in reality, not in imagination.

Both are excluding reality in their foundation: reality and truth do not need to be expressed or need likes to flourish. So to look in a thought driven world is to be lost and staying lost. Entire cultures are trying to thrive in this realm, trying to become based on the external references where their main soothing reality lies within them, where they don't look.

They do not dare to look where they lost the key, in the dark. at a very young age to the pressure of conditioning of a world that is lost too. No one to blame: you are not responsible for your conditioning, you are 100% responsible to get rid of it.

They look in the light because that makes so much more common sense: so you can see what you are looking at, not finding what you are looking for (Sufi, not mine). Assisi: what you are looking for is where you are looking from. That's the one place you forgot to search for yourself.

Therefore, to answer your question "Can Indian Psychology Enhance Positive Psychology?", any concept-free psychology can, from their core foundation, enhance Positive Psychology as who studies psychology without any concept in mind finds the key in themselves.

Any psychology which is not looking to grab, looks within and finds what thought does to our functioning here and also finds that it is treated way too serious with devastating effects between people: competing and comparing instead of sharing direct experiences to grow as a species, not as a person or a culture or a part of this world but as a totality.

Thank you @Arjen Broens sir, for your expansive and thoughtful discussion. I wanted to take my time to fully absorb your insights, so I went through your thoughts with great care.

Firstly, I'm truly grateful for you taking the time to share such insightful perspectives and shape this discussion so effectively. While reading, I found myself wholeheartedly agreeing with your contributions and the way you've structured the conversation. I'll definitely delve into the references you've provided.

Secondly, I resonate entirely with your point that it is by knowing the 'I' and not what we believe 'I am' that one could get rid of this ubiquitous suffering. However, as you mentioned conditioning happens to us, but we are responsible for getting rid of it. As Frankl said, "No one has the right to do wrong, even if wrong has been done to them," it seems he chose to get rid of that condition and choose to channel the negatives into positives. Interestingly, Indian psychology and Vedic philosophy hold a similar perspective, emphasizing the state of "I" and understanding "who I truly am." This is why philosophical systems in Vedic literature are termed "darshan satras," meaning "that which makes us able to see." We all believe we see, but as you rightly pointed out, we often mistake our "imagination," "illusion," or "conditioning" for our true selves.

The Bhagavad Gita, also referred to as Gitopanishad – the "essence of all Vedic knowledge" and one of the most important Upanishads – also begins with the knowledge of self. It essentially expands on the "know thyself" principle, as you noted, but delves deeper. What we're both hinting at, in a way, are spiritual concepts. What you describe as witnessing emotions without attachment, and non-association with feelings, or "surfing" them, aligns with the Vedic concept of "sakshi bhav," and Buddha's teachings on awareness of the four kinds. In modern terms, this research translates to "mindfulness," which, interestingly, also finds significant exploration within positive psychology itself.

Moreover, it does sum up the one-liner 'know thyself' as you rightly said. However, there is more to it. Something that both of us are pointing towards are spiritual concepts in some way. What you call not seeing the duality and witnessing the emotions, not associating to the feelings and emotions or surfing them is the state known as 'sakshi bhav' in Vedic philosophy, the Buddha taught the awareness of four kinds. All of this in modern terms is researched as the term 'mindfulness', something which is pretty much researched in positive psychology itself.

Now, let me come back to my initial question. Firstly, it was mainly intended to spark discussion, not pose a definitive query. Additionally, word limits were a factor. However, as per the source I cited, while positive psychology resonates with these concepts and is empirically grounded, it may lack a cohesive theoretical framework. In contrast, Indian psychology has a reservoir of the metatheoretical framework, and it is open to trans-cognitive forms of knowing as epistemological it goes beyond the sensory range of knowing, or "non-dual". Whereas, positive psychology is close to this form of knowing similar to the mainstream.

Furthermore, we both agree that any psychology truly free from attachment ultimately fosters growth. This discussion and my question originated from this very perspective, exploring whether such psychology already exists and whether it can benefit someone loosely grasping at their own essence. I also highly recommend the Book Psychology in the Indian Tradition

I hope I've articulated my thoughts clearly. My apologies for any confusion or potential bias you might have perceived. Consider my words as merely a "pinch of salt," as I continue to learn and expand my knowledge on this intricate subject

Thank you!

Dear @Vinod Rawal , thanks for your reply: no apologies required as you have not caused any confusion or potential bias on my side, your clarification is crystal clear and open to whatever is there to be learned which I salute you for.

I have read both your research papers on the FoMO - SNS relationship and on, closer to my earthly location at the moment, Hume. In both your conclusions are profoundly honest and without mind and ego interfering in your results. Keep that firmly going in whatever you persue.

One interesting remark popped up when I read your research on Hume and the Zeitgeist in relation to Hume's stance in relation to your reply here, is the essential part in a quote from Hume:

"I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception [Flew, 1962 in Hergenhahn, 2008, p. 148]"

which, in my view, is essential because he does not go deeper into the question: who is the observer who does the observing of the perception? This would confront him, in return, with his stance, that there is no soul.

From a direct personal experience I do find that there is a soul when you let perception just fly by, leaving no residue when my attention control is able to not get dragged with what is perceived or reaches my senses including this virtual 6th sense bieng my mind.

I do think that the western Zeitgeist in those days found Hume's stance, with Spinoza's and all others, already shaking the conservative grounds to its utmost, not having the space for more and deeper revelations as our time now has its own limits too.

Jiddu Krishnamurti's personal escape from Theosophy in the 1929 and his development after that, is against the same background of limitation in time which, of course, was not regarded as such, as we also not regard our explorations within ourselves as limited.

I prefer not to take your words as, as you say "a pinch of salt", I regard them as significant and am looking forward to read more of your experiences of your perceptions.

The mentioning of the elephant story is rather significant too: we do are able to grasp the bigger picture if we let go of the focus on details and don't let our perception hone into this too much. Let perception just fly by, the classification of what we see, Hume's associations, is our limitation that prevents us from seeing the bigger picture.

Which brings us back to the aforementioned old Indian scriptures: based upon my own personal direct experiences, below the superfical level of dualities lies the non-dual massive space, this vault of possibilities and opportunities where all arises from which cannot be expressed in words.

Words being the expression of thought and mind, limited by the shackles of the past in both of them where they are both bound by the associative tools. Words Cannot Express What I Wish to Convey (Lao Tze) or

The Map is not the Territory (Korzybski of course) comes to mind.

Using words is bound to cause confusion from a thinking point of view. Pick up essences, beyond the realm of words, thinking and mind.

Looking forward to read more from you.

Dear Arjen Broens sir,

Thank you again for your kind words. Knowing I could articulate myself clearly is truly validating, especially considering Korzybski's quote about our limitations in language and perception. I'm also incredibly grateful that you took the time to delve into my messy undergraduate assignment. Your insights on Hume's stance were profound, and I never considered that questioning the "perceiver" behind his observations could have shifted his view on the soul's existence.

While I don't currently have the free time to fully explore your work and references, I will add them to my reading list. However, I skimmed through some of your writings, and a quote particularly resonated with me:

"All it needs is one amazingly simple shift in your perception: one tiny bit taken out of the equation you consistently used to try to find your happiness out there but it is right here, now and nowhere else. Your view on life will never be the same again."

This echoed a Hindi saying I hold dear, "dṛiṣhṭi badalne se sṛiṣhṭi badaltī hai," meaning "When you change how you look at things, the world changes for you." Another profound nugget I caught in your "The Art of Disappointment" struck me – the idea that "[we]" are the artists creating our disappointments, the gardeners of our minds, as James Allen beautifully phrases it in "As a Man Thinketh."

Your interest in my perspectives piqued my curiosity, and upon exploring your profile, I understood why "self-awareness" figures as one of your skills. Your writing indeed reflects a deep understanding of the self. While I believe I'm still a work in progress on this journey, I resonate with the idea of souls embarking on paths towards the Ultimate. As Swami Vivekananda eloquently proclaimed,

"We are the Children of God, the sharers of immortal bliss

holy and perfect beings. You are divinities on earth

(. . .)

Come up, O lions, and shake off the delusion that you are sheep;

you are souls immortal, spirits free, blest and eternal;

you are not matter, you are not bodies; matter is your servant,

not you the servant of matter."

in Pathways to Joy: The Master Vivekananda on the Four Yoga Paths to God

Although our paths to the Ultimate might differ subtly, I believe this quote beautifully encapsulates the essence of both our stances. I also enjoyed exploring your profile and am curious about your ongoing research (thoughts influencing our behaviour). I hope to contribute to your discussions or questions with some of my perspectives (soon when I take time out for it).

Thank you once again for your invaluable input and time.

Thank you, Vinod, and the quote from Ramakrishna's pupil turning spiritual leader in his days does beautifully encapsulate the stances we have.

Although I sincerely aim to leave all symbolism out of my verbalisation, I do support his parallel with the delusion that we are sheep, renouncing that we are lions underneath.

Your Hindi quote:"When you change how you look at things, the world changes for you." is key to leave the representation and go for the reality.

Look without trying to grab, without trying to classify what you are looking at as our classification is founded on our past which is gone: it was valid in those times but not with the new instance of now, here. Look without any intent, look fresh and anew, every second of the day. Go for the reality, not the representation of it.

So the change in your quote mentioned, is profoundly changing the way we perceive the reality when, and only when you devotively wish to see the reality as it is, the Acceptance of What Is without trying to bend it into our framework of thought, our projection, leave thought out of the equation and you will realise, not realize, the freedom right in front of you Vivekananda is talking about between his lines.

"I (ego) needs to go for I (self) to flourish" (Ramana)

I wish you well on your path and will follow your contributions with a delighted high interest.