The Epistemology of Rasa as a Basic Foundation of the Javanese Psychology

This paper is an attempt to comprehend the epistemology of the Javanese worldview when it is used as the primary argument for indigenous psychology. The aim is to explore epistemology in Javanese psychology as a cultural understanding framework for the concept of knowledge and human experience. Javanese psychology is rooted in the rich Javanese tradition and philosophy, which have a unique way of understanding the universe and human existence in it. The method in this paper is literature research using the Wilhelm Dilthey hermeneutic method. The first step is describing the influence of positivism. The next steps are to discuss the concepts of metaphysics and epistemology in Rasa, and the reasons why indigenous psychology should be built upon the foundation of congruent philosophical thoughts. The conclusion that can be drawn is that the concept of Rasa will become the basis of the epistemological foundation of a new branch of indigenous psychology called Javanese psychology.

This paper is an attempt to comprehend the epistemology of the Javanese worldview when it is used as the primary argument for indigenous psychology. The aim is to explore epistemology in Javanese psychology as a cultural understanding framework for the concept of knowledge and human experience. Javanese psychology is rooted in the rich Javanese tradition and philosophy, which have a unique way of understanding the universe and human existence in it. The method in this paper is literature research using the Wilhelm Dilthey hermeneutic method. The first step is describing the influence of positivism. The next steps are to discuss the concepts of metaphysics and epistemology in Rasa, and the reasons why indigenous psychology should be built upon the foundation of congruent philosophical thoughts. The conclusion that can be drawn is that the concept of Rasa will become the basis of the epistemological foundation of a new branch of indigenous psychology called Javanese psychology.

INTRODUCTION
meaningful in their own cultural context and construct theoretical frameworks for the sake of solving their own problems. (Hwang, 2005: 8-17). Uichol Kim (1999) clearly stated that psychology, which started in Europe and developed significantly in the US, is deeply enmeshed with individualistic values of Western liberalism. Psychologists always using a top-down approach in search generalization of phenomena, emulating the natural sciences. In that situation, the Behaviorism paradigm gives the scientific method to psychology. In Feyerabend's thought, it becomes the propagandist and giving psychology the legitimacy as an objective, independent, and experimental branch of natural science.
The definition of indigenous psychology by Kim stated that it is "the scientific study of human behavior or mind that is native, that is not transported from other regions, and that is designed for its people." Indigenous psychologies deal with cultural as context, and then from that point rise on discussing local knowledge, even beliefs of people and their role in society. It tries to describe human functioning in a cultural context and based on that, and theories were made and tested. The next step will be to create a more rigorous, systematic, universal science that can be theoretically and empirically verified. (Kim & Park, 2005: 75-95) Indigenous psychology seems to be the final answer for Asian needs on psychology, but there are still so many problems that should be coped. The very first is the basic shape of a paradigm which used to construct indigenous psychology to be called scientific enough. Is it enough if we said that indigenous psychology is an attempt to impose Western paradigm, and make some modification, so much that this Western paradigm could fit inside it necessities to help Asian needs? Or is it much more profound if we make our own paradigm based on our worldview, values, mores, and cultural traditions? The first is what Enriquez called indigenization-from-without, and the second is indigenization-from-within. (Kim, 2000: 265-287). The aims is to explore epistemology in Javanese psychology as a cultural understanding framework for the concept of knowledge and human experience.

THEORETICAL REVIEW The Influence and Impact of Positivism
The influence of positivism in psychology starts from the birth of modernism. Res Cogitans, with which can liberate themselves from the confines of this world, think that it is different from the world, and he could autonomously determine the methods and tools that he wanted to use to understand, explore and simultaneously exploit the world around him. The segregation between the subject's consciousness and the outside world trigger the assumptions that those subjects were able to projected objects outside his/her consciousness, so the knowledge gained about the object can considered clear from any form of subjects intervention. (Ott, 2006: 437-450) The main objective of positivist-minded scientists is to find regularities from phenomena. To the positivists, 'theory can be either verified or falsified by any empirical experience. Indeed, a statement without the support of statistical analysis cannot be called "scientific" because of its induction procedures are not met. With inductive procedures, social scientists hope to discover the social laws like the laws of physics, so the use of a rigid procedure with different variants of quantitative methodologies has succeeded in making most of the scientists felt it was scientific. The most vital mistakes in positivism are to treat every phenomenon, including social phenomena, as a natural phenomenon that is fixed and operating through constant causes. As a result, it has become a common belief that without a methodological procedure, a finding that 'only' based on reflective methods would never be considered to be valid. (Stephen Perry, 2009: 311-325).
Positivism began to grow and affects social sciences, including psychology, with the advent of Behaviorism. As the experiments began to bloom, Behaviorism began to examine the behavior observed. Tangible and measurable behavior always significant, but not the spirit or mental manifestation of the abstract. A mental aspect of consciousness that has no physical form is a pseudo-problem for science and should be avoided. The consequences, psychology was forced to lean toward the natural sciences. These kind of episteme reduction is carried out too far so that critiques towards those positivistic tendencies is emerging, both from within psychology in particular and the social sciences in general.
Regarding this matter, Feyerabend (1999) thinks that, throughout history, science does not only contain facts and conclusions but also contains ideas and interpretations without direction, and eventually, humans could only understand that the history of science is full of chaos. Feyerabend argues that this whole mess can only be stopped by rejecting everything associated with the methods of science and science itself, seizing all human attempts to understand these concepts at all, or in other words, anarchism. The next step is to use whatever method we like to analyze phenomena in a more rational (and/or irrational too), clear, and free to reach the truth. This what Feyerabend's conception of epistemological anarchism is.
Furthermore, Feyerabend stated that there should be a movement that comprehensively attempted to correct the claims of the universal foundation of science. In his opinion, positivism in science became an ideology and finally mixed with power. The result is fatal because, as a single and absolute truth, positivistic science is both oppressive culture and local knowledge. The epistemological anarchism is a demand that science becomes robust because of plural and open to itself (Feyerabend, 1999: 50-78). Feyerabend thinks, along with the rise of postmodern, opening opportunities to make some new scientific methods, especially in social sciences. Psychology itself began to get a new foothold in the use of methods that are more reflective and particular.
The discourse about a more cultural-context-sensitive paradigm in psychology and a more political-demarcation-sensitive emerged through crosscultural psychology, which, in turn, gets punctuation more firmly in cultural psychology. Cross-Cultural Psychology thinks that there is no positivistic psychology can apply objective, universal everywhere, so the concept applies to one group of people is not necessarily also apply to other nations or ethnicity. Cultural psychology is the study of culture as a context to find universality and East Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (EAJMR) Vol. 2, No. 8, 2023: 3209-3222 3213 build individual self-identity. Cultural psychology is the study of how cultural traditions have been set up, express, and transform the human soul, which makes the whole one-man's psyche to be reduced and led to ethnic differences in mind, self, and emotion.
Although cross-cultural and then cultural psychology, which succeeded in its endeavor to find a new approach for more local-knowledge-aware psychology, those schools still entrapped with modern epistemology. The great drawback is that according to Triandis (1999); they still trying to find same perspectives, at least in every different cultural groups, such as: cultural syndrome, the general patterns in a varieties of subjective culture, pattern of beliefs, attitudes, self-definition, norms, and values organized around several themes. (Triandis, 2000: 185-195). This drawback did not bring anything good on non-Western (non-Europe-non US) people who have psychological problems, because the cross-cultural psychologist and cultural psychologist eventually trying to make a new universal method. This kind of discourse leads to a dead-end, which Indigenous Psychology is trying to resolve for the past 30 years.

The Process of Psychology Indigenization
Indigenization-from-without concern with imposing and modifying psychological theories, concepts, and methods to fit the cultural context in some local culture. In this approach, researchers integrate the local knowledge, modified and adapted them into psychological theories. Only similar aspects that have some complementary factors across cultures are retained and considered as universals. Similarly, indigenization involves "transformations that the transplanted or borrowed external elements undergo so that they suit the characteristics of the region or the culture" Although theories, concepts, and methods are modified based on local cultural contexts, indigenization from without represents an external imposition (Enriquez, 1993) This practice seems to be a perfect answer, because the scientific method which came from Western countries and considered scientific enough is retained, and only perspectives' from local knowledge was used. But there was still some epistemological debate that should be concluded in the first place: the concept of knowledge and where it came from. It means that the metaphysical anthropology should be congruent between the Western concept of humans with, for say Javanese ontological concept. Indigenous knowledge is treated as an auxiliary source, not as the primary source of knowledge. (see Kim, 2000) Indigenization-from-without think that local knowledge in order to be used as a fundamental conception toward indigenous psychology, it must be comprehended in the first place. Indigenous psychology researchers must not too quickly conclude that this local knowledge has impacts on people, culturally and psychologically. Indigenous philosophical and religious texts cannot be errantly used as a perspective because it is obsolete, and actually, the researcher is not sure whether the laypeople are still using them as a guide.
In the indigenization-from-within, local knowledge will be used as a primary resource for theory, and methods, in order to form a rigorous paradigm. The indigenous psychologies try to reveal the people's beliefs, philosophy, mores, customs, habits, which could be used as a basic understanding of dreams, visions, feelings, goals, intentions of common people. So it is much more a bottom-up approach. It recognizes that human psychology is complex, dynamic, and generative. Epistemology, theories, concepts, and methods must be developed to correspond with psychological phenomena. Although this kind of indigenization seems local dan particular, still the goal is trying to preserving objectivity, experimental, and universalism of science. (Kim, 2000: 265-287) The second problem is rather philosophical, which is about what kind and how of epistemology concept should be used by indigenous psychology so it can be considered scientific? This question related to the first problem with which indigenization should be used in constructing indigenous psychology. If the indigenous psychologist tries their best to make their methods, their own scientific paradigm, although if it gives a good use for the community where it is applied, the plural indigenous psychology will be the disabled for it.
The question will be how many indigenous psychologies should be developed if the population of a country is so diverse in culture and ethnicity? Moreover, if so, which should be used in certain particular cases of ethnicity conflicts? How can we say that there is "the truth" in such diverse answers? In this global-communication era, there is no way a culture would never meet, greet, and have a dialogue with another kind of culture. People's mobility and ethnic migration raised high, and people cannot refuse globalization. The impact is: there is no way a culture distinguished and lived in a vacuum space. In coping with these problems, the indigenous psychologist eventually trapped inside the universalism and objectivism paradigm used by modernism and one of the most prolific examples made by Yang (2012), which is trying to formulate a new kind of indigenous psychology called Asian psychology.

METHODOLOGY
The method in this paper is library research using the Wilhelm Dilthey's hermeneutic method. The object of this research is Javanese culture which is explored epistemologically, to find a basis for one of the developments in indigenous psychology, namely Javanese psychology.
The hermeneutic of Wilhelm Dilthey is one of a philosophical method which contributed to many of literature reseach of philosophy subject. Dilthey's hermeneutics provides a systematic approach to understanding, emphasizing the importance of grasping the unique characteristics of historical events and human experiences. Understanding in hermeneutics involves a process of interpretation, where the researcher seeks to uncover the underlying meaning and intention behind texts or phenomena. Hermeneutics as a methodology involves the application of interpretive principles and techniques to analyze and make sense of historical and cultural artifacts. It aims to uncover the subjective and contextual aspects of these artifacts. The hermeneutical approach recognizes the inseparability of apprehension and evaluation, emphasizing the importance of considering the value and normative aspects in the interpretation of texts and phenomena (Dilthey, 1996) East Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (EAJMR) Vol. 2, No. 8, 2023: 3209-3222 3215 The methodological steps of this study are: 1. Selecting Texts: the selection of texts is based on authentic texts that represent Javanese culture, as well as supporting literature that discusses these cultural texts. 2. Pre-Understanding (Vorverständnis): Before diving into the text, develop a preliminary understanding of the historical and cultural context in which the text was created. This involves researching the author's life, the socio-political climate of the time, and the literary conventions prevalent during that era. 3. Empathy and Feeling (Einfühlung): The text will be engaged emotionally and empathetically. Researcher will try to immerse himself in the world of the text and understand the emotions, experiences, and perspectives of the characters and the author (if there's any, considering some of the old Javanese scripture is written anonymously). 4. Understanding (Verstehen): The text will be readed carefully and thoroughly. Focus on grasping the meanings of words, phrases, and sentences in their specific contexts, also the nuances of language, symbols, metaphors, and literary devices used by the author. 5. Contextual Analysis: The text will be places within the broader cultural and historical context. How does the text reflect the values, beliefs, and concerns of the society in which it was created? Consider the author's intentions, the audience, and the literary traditions of the time. 6. Interpretation (Interpretieren): The text will be intrepreted by drawing connections between researcher's preliminary understanding, empathetic engagement, and the contextual analysis. Explore the deeper layers of meaning, subtext, and themes in the text. 7. Explaining (Erklären): researcher will explain the understanding of the text aligns with the historical and cultural context, the author's intentions, and the broader literary landscape, with all the evidences. 8. Reflection and Rationalization (Begründung): The validity of the interpretation will be reflected and justified by referencing Dilthey's emphasis on the interconnectedness of the individual experience and the cultural context

Who Are Javanese People?
Sutarto (2007) did not say clearly about whom are Javanese people, but it can be concluded that who called Javanese are the ones who: "the active bearers of Javanese culture. In daily life, the active bearers of Javanese culture frequently classify a person's behavior into four categories, namely Jawa (Javanese), durung Jawa (not yet Javanese), ora Jawa (not like Javanese), and dudu Jawa (not Javanese at all). Someone is said to be Javanese if his or her daily behavior reflects berbudi bawa leksana or sejatining becik, which means giving priority to the nobility of character based on the pituduh and wewaler in Javanese tradition. On the other hand, somebody is said to be not Javanese if his or her daily behavior fails to reflect the good values embodied in Javanese culture. And those whose behavior contrasts with Javanese pituduh and wewaler are called ora nJawa. Those who know nothing about Javanese culture and do not practice it in their daily lives are called dudu Jawa." What we mean by Javanese culture here is a complex of ideas, values, norms, regulations, and others; or a complex of patterned behavior activity of people in a society; or articles made or created by people (Koentjaraningrat 1974:15). The context of this paper is Javanese, who lived in central Java, near the cultural center of Kraton, the Palace of Javanese Kings. History stated that political contest throughout the history of Java plays a major role in people's everyday life. The Javanese kings, princes, and king's philosophers always wrote literature and books, which always giving pituduh and wewaler to his people. These writings like Serat Wulang Reh and Serat Centhini written by King of Kasunanan Surakarta, and Serat Wedhatama and Serat Tripama written by Prince of Pura Mangkunegaran, Dewaruci was written by Yasadipura I; Serat Paramayoga, Pustaka Raja Purwa, Aji Pamasa, Cemporet, Jokolodhang, Wirid, Witaradya, Barathayudha, and Kalathida written by Ranggawarsito. (Sarsito, 2006: 447-461).
The actual reason for those efforts is to preserving power by using hegemony. People told to be mbangun turut (obedient), just like sons to fathers. At the same time, in order to strengthen their grips to power, Sultan Agung, the greatest king of Mataram Dynasty in central Java, setting up a buffer social class. This new social class, called The Priyayi, acts as a cultural and political aristocracy outreach for the common people. He set up a reorganization of the administrative system. New titles and functions were created, while at the same time, the repartition of territorial competences among the agents of the imperial "bureaucracy" was better codified (Lombard 1990, vol. 3, p.67 in Bertrand, 2009. The priyayi were the administrators and therefore formed an open elite, although they did not have the "royal blood" of Mataram aristocrats (Murtono, 1981, pp.93-95).
The priyayi transform their default identity into a positive social denomination, that is, a coherent moral identity that could ground their protocol-based claims into a style of life with a recognized specificity, or so said: The" perfect man." They became the propagandist for nobility, like the Serat Wedhatama said: "the wise person (si wasis) knows how and when to give in," it means that he has to behave upon controlled passion, on the other writing in Serat wulangreh: "there is nothing comparable to serving the king. To serve is to be like a wreck in the ocean: to let yourself be carried away wherever the tide takes you" (Bertrand, 2009: pp.7593). This political strategy seems to be errant and chaotic all along with the history of Java, but it is gradually brushing the consciousness of the people, until they got carried away, and strangled by the conception of being obedient.

The Epistemologi of Java
Trying to comprehend the Javanese epistemology in order to define the concept of Javanese indigenous psychology cannot proceed without discussing the whole understandings of the Javanese worldview, especially the ontological concept of subject-object relations, and the concept of human as an anthropological notion. The next topic will be identifying the epistemological apprehension which intertwined with its culture as it becomes the foundation on Javanese knowledge building.
Just like any other ethnic group in the world, the Javanese have their own way of looking at his world. Worldview means the whole system of values that become the basic framework for Javanese to understand his positions as a human being and the world. So the Javanese worldview is a philosophical system that becomes the structural reference for the Javanese. Franz Magnis-Suseno writes that there are four circles/domain in the Javanese world view: 1. The first circle is the attitude towards the outside world is experienced as a unity of consciousness between human, natural, and supernatural world. 2. The second circle is the appreciation of the political power of the hands of supernatural forces. 3. The third circle is the inner-mystical experience of Java in the understanding of human existence as a part of nature. 4. The fourth circle is the determination of all circles in the upper part of the destiny of his life (Franz Magnis-Suseno, 1984: 78-84). Philosophically, the Javanese concept on ontology is that reality cannot be comprehended separately from the subject. For example, the concept of the state, according to the Javanese, cannot be separated from God, the harvest, and disease outbreaks. A human being did not have the autonomy of his/herself. They always are part of nature, not only their body but also their existence. The Javanese looks at the microcosmos and the macro-cosmos differently. The relation between micro and macro cosmos is a merge, so the Javanese notion on ontology is the wholeness of being. Eventually, the Javanese political philosophy thinks that the reality of the authoritarian state ruled by the absolute power based upon demagog legitimacy became the trigger for crop failure and disease outbreaks in the country. Javanese people did not comprehend the world and space where he stayed as an entity separated from consciousness. In fact, not only blend with their concept of open-to-insideconsciousness, Javanese existence lived in nature. So, instead of understands himself as a "res cogitans" capable of reflecting on his consciousness within the space, Javanese awareness is a small part of nature and space. Javanese existence blended with nature; it is inseparable (see Hughes-Freeland, 1997: 57-68).

Indigenous Psychology: Critics
Indigenous Psychology is the study of human behavior and mental processes in the context of a cultural set of values, concepts, belief systems, methodologies, and sources of indigenous nature. This suggests that indigenous psychology put forward by modern psychologists, complete with a Western scientific tradition, was only able to uncover the mental state, mental processes, as well as human mental structure by using a positivistic methodology. These facts perplex the development of psychology in developing countries, especially in Indonesia. The fact that Indonesia as a political entity made up of diverse cultures, with hundreds of cultural context, and thousands of ethnicity, with their own world-view, cannot be inductively understood using a single paradigm which produces a uniform response to different social phenomena.
So, what is the point of those laborious researches on philosophical factors, native values, indigenous epistemology, socio-anthropological facts on some ethnicity, if the only result is that the concept of indigenous psychology will be based on a western paradigm which has been indigenized? A psychology that relies on intuition, reflection, qualitative analysis, verstehen, such as psychology used by the Javanese, will be marginalized. While most experts in psychology in Indonesia still think that the discourse of indigenous psychology, especially in Indonesia, is speculative, not having a valid method and, therefore, cannot be considered scientific. However, history has proven that Javanese psychology helped the Javanese for centuries, not only in order to survive but to live through colonial-exploitation, a political contest between ethnic and religion, devastating natural disasters, severe economic crises and constant social unrest all along with the history of this ethnic.
There should be a new approach to deconstructing a new kind of indigenous psychology called Javanese psychology, which will be based upon the Javanese worldview. Javanese worldview should be bold enough to be the philosophical foundation, especially its epistemology, which based on Javanese ontology and metaphysical anthropology. It will be a great project because of the scale and the scope of the Javanese people, but it will be a way to make indigenous psychology for the people and not psychology for psychologists.

Rasa as Javanese Psychology
Stange (1984) stated that: "In the traditional Javanese context, and among those now still experiencing a continuity with it, 'knowledge' in its significant form is 'ngelmu'. The Javanese refers to gnosis, to a mystical or spiritual form of knowledge, which is a blended notion of intellectuality and intuition. What is meant by 'nglemu' is that it is a whole-body experience rather than just the mind that 'knows'. It is the underlies of Javanese mystical theory not only of consciousness but also of its relationship, which is essentially reflexive, to social and political power.
In contrast to Greek thoughts after Socrates, the Javanese worldview does not separate between knowledge (ngelmu) and interests. Knowledge is the reasoning of everyday life that leads to a certain point in human life. That is, knowledge is not an attempt to think the phenomenon of life is reduced to strictly then refined into a theory. Knowledge in the Javanese worldview is intuitive and is obtained through the sense. Taste is the gate once the room where all the understanding of the "depth" begins and ends. Rasa can also mean "the essence" because, at the same time, it has a connotation of rahsya (inner secret, confidential). It is an expression that reality is hiding, disguised by the phenomenon. 'Rasa' is among other things, the cognitive organ which, as Javanese mystics understand it, we use to 'know' the intuitive aspects of reality.
It is in Javanese terms through intuitive experience and knowledge that people may sense the 'wahyu', the charismatic glow, of a person of power. (Stange, 1984: 113-134) Unlike the Western concept of ratio, rasa is nature in itself. Because consciousness in the Javanese world view is always engaging with reality, so does rasa: Understanding God or gods, His nature and His laws reached by understanding human beings. Therefore an understanding of phenomenon through rasa is very subjective knowledge. So that the revealing of nature's hidden secret can only be achieved through fasting and segregating oneself away from the hustle and bustle of life, and meditation, and contemplation. (Mulder, 2005: 15-47). All of these views can be described by the term biostheoretikos.
Javanese worldview is the linkage between theory and praxis, which are heading in the direction of true wisdom as an existential term of living harmonious and in peace with our own. Javanese epistemology is trying to build a theory for macrocosm contemplation, where he/she can reveal and, in the end, understand an orderly universe that can be used to a mirror to reflecting ones. (Mulder, 2001: 75-94). This kawruh (episteme) eventually constructed to Javanese horoscope primbon and book of future predictions ramalan ala Ranggawarsita (Javanese philosopher) or King Jayabaya. Primbon is a book containing systematically constructed kawruh (and then become ngelmu) made by Javanese ancestors who tried to uncover the secrets of nature. Primbon gives traits and behavior patterns of the universe and the way of further disclosure of the nature of the universe.
Javanese epistemology eventually leads to a different kind of epistemology used to be recognized by Western philosophy. The concept of rasa leads to the notion of closed consciousness. It also means that the understanding of existence is different from Modernism, especially Descartes's. The consciousness in Javanese epistemology work only to intuitive input came from rasa. What the Western philosophy accustomed as reasoning, in Javanese epistemology, it only becomes an appetizer at dinner and not the main course. Kawruh, which essentially came intuitively, became the only resource to set up a ngelmu, and the consciousness does not need a source from any sense, except through rasa. Ultimately, this kind of consciousness only produces knowledge which very personal and special. It would lead to massive alienation from reality itself.
Dialectic Reasoning in Javanese epistemology has always been through the deposition of subjective stage of rasa, so that the result achieved is a thesis that is ready to be used to deal with reality. Therefore contemplation is strictly personal method of this legitimacy gained intuitively through using the validity of metaempiric as truth claims. The end result is a knowledge which considered valid and irrefutable because it is often considered mystical. For example, during the attempt of toppling New Order Regime in May 20th, 1998, the Sultan Hamengkubuwono X act on gathering more than 1 million people in Yogyakarta at that time, was a bold political move after he finished his fasting and get the order from his late ancestors. Sultan's decision to perform this action is considered correct because Sultan is considered to have done the contemplation and meditation, seeking God's and the universe's answers upon these problems. In the end, the unity between subject and object, between one's microcosmos through rasa and the macro cosmos, cannot be denied, except that human feelings and consciousness do not recognize any dialogues between the elements from outside the subject when doing contemplation. (Kresna, 2009: 63-71).

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Javanese psychology, as indigenous psychology, cannot be based upon Western philosophy. At the same time, Javanese psychology cannot be indigenized psychology. The arguments for refuting these notions are because of the significant position of the subject, and it is consciousness in Western philosophy, especially the way for subject collecting input from senses, and constructed a new pattern of knowledge as understood by Descartes. Then Kant seems to be so greatly disparate and clearly distinct from the Javanese counterparts. The relations between subjects and objects in Western philosophy actually put the consciousness/mind in the center of discourse, while in Javanese world-view, consciousness is flowing with the existence of human beings. The subject is not the center that has all the authority to appraise the input from sense and making the construction of knowledge. It means that Javanese psychology cannot be based upon the autonomy and independence of a subject. Every understanding which will be used as a theory in Javanese psychology should be based upon this notion. There will be no such thing called objectivity and universalism in Javanese epistemology, and this should be considered seriously before an indigenous (Javanese) psychology can be established. Javanese epistemology used as a foundation for indigenous psychology means that the role of mental processes, perception, cognition, emotion in individual and personality should be seen through Javanese notion on closedconsciousness, the logical function of rasa, the contemplation, and meditation as a way to achieve intuitional kawruh called wahyu/wangsit and the cognitive processes of deconstructing it into ngelmu. When the Javanese psychology constructed, then its theory and methodology being used as an assessment and treatment tool of mental health problems, it should be based on the concept of the Javanese worldview. The understandings gained about the Javanese mental processes also involve the sources of knowledge that are intuitive, transcendent nature of spirituality, and contemplative side of the subjectivity. As a result, a new flow in the branch of psychology called cultural psychology of Java can be declared able to scientifically explore the human background of Javanese culture and world view. It means that indigenous psychology called Javanese psychology would be scientifically useful for the Javanese, and not only for psychologist only.

FURTHER STUDY
The limitations of this paper are the space for discourse between philosophy, psychology, and other fields of social and humanities to explore the relationship between the epistemology of Rasa as the foundation of Javanese psychology; It also includes the application of Javanese psychology, both philosophically (through applied philosophy) and psychology (through indigenous psychology). Researcher suggest for an advanced research, that a qualitative or field research is urgently needed to explore more problems, the causalistic impact of Javanese Psychology, and the relation of culturalpsychology-humanities problems.