Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, select theories of self and cognition from the Indian tradition are examined and interpreted in light of contemporary psychology. The affirmation and denial of the self in respectively the Upaniṣadic and Buddhist traditions of India are explained and are critically compared with their counterparts in the works of Erik Erikson and B.F. Skinner. It is argued that, to properly understand the differing theories, it is necessary to carefully examine what is it that they affirm or deny in the name of self, on what grounds, and to what consequences. A theory of cognition from the Advaita school of Indian thought is outlined and explained to indicate how it enriches the view of transcendental self in the Upaniṣadic tradition. This theory is shown to be constructivist in a way similar to Piaget’s theory. A meditative technique based on the Advaita theory of cognition is briefly described, and it is pointed out how its successful practice leads to a deconstruction of the ego and also to important existential benefits. It is shown how the technique also provides a means to validate the theory. A brief account of a modern sage who successfully followed the Advaita approach to self-realisation is given by way of a case study to illustrate how it plays out in real life. The article is concluded with a discussion on Indian and Western psychologies and implications for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".