 Here, I would like to quickly give an introduction of the positive psychology, how it is understood mostly in the current times and then we will move on to the cultural nuances and how role of yoga has emerged and eventually became part of this course. So, here I would like to mention about Abraham Maslow, Seligman and Chikandmi High's work. Abraham Maslow obviously was much before the Seligman and Chikandmi High's work. Abraham Maslow is mentioned here because he was the very renowned psychologist who did his writings in the 50s and 60s. Most of you must be familiar to his need hierarchy theory but many of you may not also be familiar that he was the person who first time in a very articulate ways talked about holism, meta needs and the self actualizing tendency of human being. All these are very positive in nature. He talked about holistic perspective of looking at psychology. He critiqued the atomistic functional view of the world and he claimed that he want that psychology should not suffer from it and called for not only developing holistic perspective but also developing research methods which can understand the whole the human being in its holistic nature. And holistic means it cannot be reduced in response, it cannot be reduced to simple few tendencies which someone has acquired in the childhood and looking at human being as a dynamic constantly evolving entity. He talked about the meta needs which is beyond the basic needs which need not be satisfied. He talked about self actualization and in order to fulfill the meta needs in self actualization human beings can forego even the lower level needs. These all things were appeared in Abraham Maslow's writing. But probably it was not carried out in a very empirical way at least in the famous American psychologist paper of 2001, Salishman and Chikandmi Hai point out that and they say that Abraham Maslow and other psychologists who are termed as humanistic psychologists their work at number one it became much more self centric and number two not much empirical inquiry was carried out to take forward that work. Whatever may be the reason Salishman and his colleague were able to articulate the positive psychology in a very emphatic way. See positive psychology the aim of positive psychology is claimed by the leaders of the field as achieving flourishing and flourishing is understood to be in terms of an acronym Parma that that stands for positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning in life and accomplishment. So, positive psychology is a study of flourishing naturally the well-being is reflection of flourishing but it is not only personal well-being it is relationship as well as meaning in life as well. It also aims at studying the conditions to flourish conditions and processes that contribute to flourishing and optimal functioning of people groups and institutions. So, here you see evolving from the humanistic psychology positive psychology not only focuses on people it also focuses on flourishing groups and thriving communities evolving institutions naturally as the emergence of the field itself is result of this process this is not and this is very different from treating illness. It is based on the fundamental insights that treating mental illness is not same thing as promoting mental health it is very solution focused it is not merely corrective and limited to offering solution only when things go downhill but it is telling people what should be the attitude what activities they can carry out what interventions can be done to not only attain flourishing but also retaining flourishing. In the recent review they have identified 51 types of 51 different interventions systematically studied in the positive psychology. So, when this special issue of American psychologist about positive psychology appeared it attracted major reactions lot of positive reactions almost everybody welcomed this move of a field of psychology to study the things of life which makes it worth living looking at the potential of human being looking at the possibilities of the human nature all that was widely appreciated it was also critiqued on being very ethnocentric. So, there are large number of scholars who pointed out this this aspect and Christopher and Hicken bottom have captured the essence of many scholars who have mentioned about the ethnocentric perspective not being inclusive nature of the positive psychology field as was reflected in that particular issue in that is special issue where 15 articles on different aspects of the positive psychology was published. So, what Christopher and Hicken bottom write that current efforts in positive psychology are deconstructed to reveal an adherence to the dominant western conception of self and its accompanying vision of the good life as personal fulfillment. So, they pointed out that there are many cultures which can have different notion of self which is very different from the notion of self held by the liberal or neoliberal society of the western world. Essentially they questioned that positive psychology cannot be universal or the way it is presented cannot be universal because of three things. Number one vision of world is different in different cultures what is the vision of world that is we are going to look at in the second in the next slide. Notion of self is itself is different which is arise which arises from the worldview or vision of the world notion of self what is self that itself is different that that understanding itself is different in different cultures. As a result of that the very conception of happiness and what makes good life also differs. So, how can there be a universal positive psychology or if at all there is a need and there can be a universal positive psychology we need to do more thorough job we need to have more cultural perspectives we need to have examining the basic assumptions of the current formulations of positive psychology more thoroughly using cultural lenses to make it more inclusive so that it can become more generalizable or if I may use this word more universal. So, first thing we look at the worldview this notion of Christopher and Hicken bottom is based on the work of Charles Taylor. Charles Taylor in 1989 wrote a very interesting piece on modernity and emergence of self and he talks about two types of worldview prevalent in the world what is worldview? World view is basic assumptions believe values about how this world is and how it works. So, Taylor's point out that different cultures have different worldview and they can be merged and they can be summarized in the in a one in a term called one-tire worldview or single-tire worldview and two-tire worldview. One-tire worldview suggests that world is what is visible human being is what is visible what is experience what is empirical what is objectively verifiable and the happiness and responsibility of the life is particularly is solely lying in the individual inner situation. It is on the individual where the responsibility of his or her happiness lies that is the one-tire worldview, but two-tire worldview which was prescribed by most of the cultures particularly before modernization and so-called enlightenment in the 16th, 17th century it talks about two-world views it talks about two-world two-tire worldview Greeks Balinese and Indians these the these three example can point out this aspect Greek they used to believe in having a life of necessity which is the necessary biological survival situation that is one world and there is another world the world of called us and which is good life which is life of citizens beyond necessities life of the citizen which makes society worth living that makes the essential human nature of the humanity these cultures are talking about more objective reality which is more based on biological survival or at max social needs and also a transcendental aspect of the world these cultures also believe and many culture is still hold that beliefs hold that belief that it is the transcendental reality which imbue the value in meaning to the mundane so-called mundane reality so Balinese and Bali is greatly influenced by Indian culture as well they talk about Sekala and Niskala Sekala is again is a reflection of the ordinary realm of everyday life experiences and Niskala is the spiritual world that is deeper level of reality that is invisible to the untrained but ultimately determines what occurs in daily life and what is sadhana sadhana is the process of unraveling that what Balinese called Niskala and Indians called para vidya Indians say para vidya and opera vidya para vidya refers to the higher learning para is beyond opera is which is not beyond which is immediately accessible through our senses so para refers to higher learning learning related to self or ultimate truth that is transcendental knowledge so here the self is used and professor eschage actually used it beautifully he wrote that a small self with a small s and self with capital s self with a small s is born by our identity about our physicality about our social circle and governed by individual ego whereas self with the capital s is the real self where nature all the creatures and the whole cosmos is included realizing that thing realizing that inherent oneness what is called non duality underneath diverse form of nature knowledge of that is called para vidya that governs the so called mundane life which is perceptible through our senses and this culture believed that what is life is much beyond my sense perceptions but studying that also is important because we have to do the agriculture we have to set up temples we have to construct things people have to build their family society has to have norms there has to be exchange of things business has to be developed so apara vidya is also important but that apara vidya is in a very tentative way we are calling it lower knowledge it is not considered lower in indian tradition but it is suddenly not considered ultimate it is not considered that about which rishi of upanishad says that knowing which nothing else is left to be known there is a story in the upanishad where a child comes where a boy comes after receiving education from his guru he comes back to see his father and father was working in a garden and just by while working in the garden he looked at his son he asked okay so have your education is completed he said yes and then father asked but have you got something have you come to so he says that boy we are brahmins by definition brahmins means those who know the brahman those who know the ultimate reality those who have the access to para vidya so we are brahmins and we are supposed to have the knowledge of brahman and that is what is the ultimate knowledge so have you known something that after knowing which nothing left is to be known that aspect of para vidya is the ultimate realization of human potential that is why it is called self realization but that self realization has as as capital because that is the real self brahman is the real self atman is jivatman is but a sense of self which is result of the result of the sense of separation arising from ignorance this aspect of the world view what charles taylor calls two-tier world view is present was present has been present in most of the cultures before modernization but what is the world view being prescribed in the existing literature of positive psychology that is reflected in the form of definition of self basic assumption of self is reflected in their work so positive psychology is currently largely based on dominant western and particularly american ideologies and christopher and king bottom write that it is clear that it is based on cartesian distinction what is cartesian distinction that that is the thought given by that great scientist that subject to a world and object to a world are different realm of sciences to deal with the objective world objective reality anything which is not in the objective reality anything which is not objectively very fable is not the matter of science so it is not the matter of knowledge it can be a matter of belief notion of fixed and essential self is also evident in the writings of positive psychology thirdly it talks about meaning and values are subjective in nature and person should be free to determine both the meaning of and means to pursue the good life and christopher and king bottom point out different questionnaires different psychometric assessment tools to study well-being to study even flourishing and then this suggests they point out that though these questionnaires are having element of other orientation if they have the element of inclusion so called others but what gives meaning to life is largely understood to be understood to be the choice of human being there is no great meaning as such universally it is human being and depends dependent on his tendency or her tendency to find something meaningful or not so the means to pursue the good life or happiness in whatever manner they choose that is the basic assumption and they should choose as long as and they can choose anything as long as that do not interfere with the ability of others to do the same