Part 4 - Etic and Emic Approach

Typically, in any scientific study especially that of psychology and anthropology, there are two approaches to any research and analysis. One is called the‘Etic’ approach/perspective and the other is called the‘Emic’ approach/perspective.

Etic perspective means ‘of, relating to, or involving analysis of cultural phenomena from the perspective of one who does not participate in the culture or topic being studied’.

Emic perspective means ‘of, relating to, or involving analysis of cultural phenomena from the perspective of one who participates in the culture or topic being studied’.

It is worth noting that majority of scientific discoveries and inventions have been the outcome of ‘Etic’ approach, wherein the scientist or the researcher studying a particular aspect of a scientific topic, observes the phenomenon from outside. He does not participate and is not part of actual happenings in the experiment, be it in a laboratory setting or a natural setting outdoors. Thus, a scientist only conducts the experiment as non-involved observer and records his observations and the findings. As such the process is completely impersonal and devoid of any feelings, emotions or colored by any other mind stuff of the scientist. The results of such etic approach are objective in its nature and can generally be provable beyond doubt.

On the other hand, a topic such as Pātañjala Yogadarśana is best studied by ‘Emic’ approach. This means the person trying to understand and analyze the deep-seated repertoire of knowledge and wisdom contained in Pātañjala-Yogasūtras must participate in the study not merely as an outside observer but has to be a participant himself.

Osho explains^[1] it beautifully thus,

Because so-called religions need beliefs. There is no other difference between one religion andanother; the difference is only of beliefs. A Mohammedan has certain beliefs, a Hindu certainother, a Christian certain other. The difference is of beliefs. Yoga has nothing as far as belief isconcerned; yoga doesn’t say to believe in anything. Yoga says experience. Just like science saysexperiment, yoga says experience. Experiment and experience are both the same, their directions are different. Experiment means something you can do outside; experience means something you can do inside. Experience is an inside experiment.

Science says: Don’t believe, doubt as much as you can. But also, don’t disbelieve, because disbelief is again a sort of belief. You can believe in God, you can believe in the concept of no-God. You can say God is, with a fanatic attitude; you can say the quite reverse, that God is not with the same fanaticism. Atheists, theists, are all believers, and belief is not the realm for science. Science means experience something, that which is; no belief is needed. So, the second thing to remember: Yoga is existential, experiential, experimental. No belief is required, no faith is needed–only courage to experience. And that’s what’s lacking. You can believe easily because in belief you are not going to be transformed. Belief is something added to you, something superficial. Your being is not changed; you are not passing through some mutation. You may be a Hindu, you can become a Christian the next day. Simply, you change: you change Gita for a Bible. You can change it for a Koran, but the man who was holding Gita and is now holding the Bible, remains the same. He has changed his beliefs.

Yoga is a subjective science, emphasizing on inner transformation that leads to the realization of the self, which Patañjali calls kaivalya (liberation).

Upaniṣads emphasize on the Emic approach, without which the inward journey of consciousness is impossible.

In the highest form of devotion, the Upaniṣads say that one must become God in order to worship God.

devo bhūtvādevamyajetaśivobhūtvāśivamyajeta.

This is so because Yoga is an ‘Experiential Science’ of the mind. Unless the participant is involved himself with his body, emotions and other mind stuff, the effects of sādhanā cannot be attained or achieved for him. On the other hand, no amount of externally observing other people undertaking spiritual or yogic sādhanā can generate any direct benefit to an impersonal observer.That is why scientific research (as discussed in chapter IV of this thesis) has limitations when higher yogic practices viz. dhāraṇā, dhyāna, samādhi are studied.As such, an Emic approach, where the practitioner is himself the researcher as also the subject of research is best suited for study of Pātañjala-Yogadarśana. In this context it is appropriate to note that—Vyāsa, Aranya and Osho whose commentaries on Pātañjala Yogasūtra> has been a matter of this research, have been the masters in the field of Yoga themselves. Their commentaries are therefore outcome of their self-experiences^[2] of the sādhanā techniques suggested by Patañjali.

Not much information is available about Vyāsa who has commented on Pātañjala Yogasūtra It is almost certain however that he is not the Vedavyāsa or the one who wrote Bhagavadgītā. In ancient Indian culture, Vyāsa was a designation given to a learned scholar who had the authority to write and explain spiritual scriptures. Obviously Vyāsa, the commentator on Pātañjala Yogasūtra must be a master in the spiritual field.

Svāmī-Hariharānanda-Araṇya, founder of Kapila Monastry who commented on Vyāsabhaṣya,spent last twenty-one years of his life in Madhupur in Bihar in solitary sequestered residence, where he lived the life of a hermit. The only means of contact with him and his disciples was through a window opening on a big hall. During this solitary life, he wrote numerous philosophical treaties, the yogadarśana being his magnum opus. Most of his books are the product of his meditation and realization.

On the other hand, Osho has commented on practically every available philosophical scripture in India. Be it Bhagavadgītā, Pātañjala Yogasūtra, Nārada-Bhaktisūtra, Aṣṭāvakra-Gītā, Upaniṣads and many others. He held extensive discourses, talks and Satsang sessions not only in India but all over the world. He has touched practically every single topic of interest to a spiritual aspirant. His talks and writings had a luminosity of its own. Only a person who has experienced the ultimate truth himself can write and talk the way Osho did.

However, we must also remember the adage ‘Philosophy begins where science stops’. The end results or outcomes of sādhanā such as kaivalya or samādhi states are beyond the realms of conventional expressions by words. These are ineffable in nature and are experienced by the sādhaka himself. Therefore, evidencing the benefits of sādhanā on the human spiritual evolution can be inferred in the laboratory settings only to a limited sphere of observation as has been brought out in chapter 4 on ‘Relevant Research’ in the field of Yoga (Brain mapping).

However, as is the adage, “absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence” and that only goes to indicate that such higher states of consciousness such as kaivalya are to be experienced and a mere absence of scientific evidence of that state does not mean the absence of that state.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Osho, Yoga the Alpha and the Omega, vol.1, p.5

[2]:

Vasant Joshi, Osho -The Luminous Rebel, Wisdom Tree, New Delhi, 2010, p.9,11