 Indian philosophers of Mind/Self and Consciousness are of naturalist persuasion. Most systems subscribe to soft naturalism except the Cārvāka and the Advaita Vedānta. Regarding mind and consciousness, too, the materialist Cārvāka-s are hard naturalists and the spiritualist Advaitins are non-naturalists. However, naturalists and non-naturalists alike approach mentalistic concepts on the basis of our lived experience. That is, they theorize on these concepts at the person-level using the vocabulary eminently suitable for expressing human experiences. Hence subjective phenomena fall squarely within the Space of Reason. Pluralist schools, viz., the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika-s, the Jaina-s, the Prābhākara school of Mīmāṃsā, accommodate mind, body, consciousness and emotions within nature without much problem because they construe nature rather widely. They do not think that nature is homogeneous as it is constituted by the material elements and their properties. Consequently Indian theorists are not bugged by the problems of interactionism and reductionism. Let me explain this point in brief. Whoever placed mind and consciousness in one realm and body and brain in a different realm failed to account for causal interaction amongst conscious mind and extended body, a phenomenon we commonly experience in our everyday life. Besides, denial of a pluralist ontology and adopting a particular kind of scientific explanation underlie reductionism and its associated problems. If different kinds of entities could be accommodated in nature and the model of scientific explanation adopted in the wake of the unification of science program could be given up then the reductive tendencies (metaphysical, doctrinal and theoretical reduction) could be kept in check.