The difference between the Direct Path of Advaita Vedanta and, for instance, raja yoga is that what the latter takes for granted is drawn into question by the former. Allow me to unpack this statement.

Quite understandably, raja yogis will say, “You need to take these forms–the gross body, the energy body, and the mental body–and treat these instruments in such a way that they can work properly.” Through hatha yoga, for instance, the gross body can be relieved of tensions, with the result that one can sit in a crosslegged position (and therefore, in due course, meditate thus). The suggestion is that the proper working of all these instruments is a precondition for one-pointed concentration.

The Direct Path takes up the basic assumptions and asks, “Is there such a thing as an instrument?” And: “Am I the same thing as the instrument or not? If I am different from the instrument, is the latter my possession? If it is my possession, what is the nature of the possessor?” And so on.

You can find this approach nicely elaborated upon in The Avadhuta Gita. There, time and again the practitioner is faced with certain sticking points–like the supposed reality of space, time, and causality; like the alleged difference between the teacher and the disciple; like the presumed distinction between the meditator and the object of meditation; and so on–and is invited to drop them all.

The question is often asked, “Who is right–the raja yogis who insist upon inner purification before one can truly meditate, or the jnana yogis who teach the Direct Path, which says that you simply need to deconstruct all of your concepts?” The answer is that they’re both right.