Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Classifying yogic practices as 'indirect means' still embeds them in an avidyā-driven teleological framework incompatible with Advaita's own metaphysics.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Advaita itself uses vyavahārika (conventional) language to address embodied seekers; 'indirect' is pedagogically necessary, not metaphysically contradictory.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Yoga removes mental obstacles (vṛtti-vikṣepas) without implying progress toward Brahman; it clarifies the field where knowledge already operates.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates the empirical utility of practices with claims about ultimate reality; frameworks need not collapse practical and absolute levels.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Advaita's non-dualism logically precludes a 'path' toward what already is; any framework positing steps implies illusion-to-truth progression.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Calling practices 'indirect means' reintroduces causality and temporality, contradicting Brahman's timeless, non-relational nature.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Only immediate self-recognition (aparokṣa-jñāna) aligns with Advaita's metaphysics; preparatory yogic disciplines remain bound to avidyā's dualistic logic.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.