The Comparison
Eight traditions, one equation — each working a different primary variable.
The comparison
The equation as a comparative instrument
The canonical equation is held fixed; only the primary variable each tradition works changes. Select a tradition to see which variable it emphasises.
| Tradition | Primary variable | Operational emphasis |
|---|---|---|
| Advaita Vedanta | Belief_total | Direct work on the deepest false belief; jñāna inquiry (shravana, manana, nididhyāsana). |
| Bhakti | Belief_total + Purity | Devotional purification; faith strengthening the coherence gate; remembrance, kīrtana, sevana. |
| Shaiva Tantra | Shakti_effective | Direct power-routing using all variables at once; mantra, yantra, nyāsa, samāveśa. |
| Shakta Tantra | Shakti_effective (+ deeper Blocker work) | Power-routing plus Āvaraṇa removal; Mahāvidyā operators; cremation-ground practice for Vīra sādhakas. |
| Patanjali Yoga | Blockers | Systematic reduction of kleśa and vṛtti through the eight limbs. |
| Kriya Yoga | Shakti_effective | Pranic/spinal energy routing through specific kriyās. |
| Nath / Hatha | Purity (Sattva) + Shakti_effective | Hardware-level optimisation: āsana, prāṇāyāma, mudrā, bandha; kuṇḍalinī. |
| Naam Jaap | Grace (ε_grace) + Belief_total | Surrender as primary protocol; minimum-viable invocation of the Name. |
Tip: select a row to highlight its variable; select it again to clear.
The honest exit: it must predict, not just describe
Name the objection: the mapping could be post-hoc — any framework can be retro-fitted to eight traditions after the fact. If this table only describes, it is decoration and you should discard it.
The test of non-arbitrariness is prediction: the mapping must say in advance which cross-tradition combinations work and which fail. For example, Bhakti → Yoga should add Blocker-reduction to an existing Belief/Purity emphasis; predicted failures come from incompatible variable-emphasis or premature combination. A combination the model says should work but doesn't — or one it says should fail but doesn't — counts against it.
If it holds, Ramakrishna's "Yata mat, tato path" (as many opinions, so many paths) stops being a relativist platitude and becomes a falsifiable experimental claim: one apparatus, multiple protocols, the same destination by different routes — same equation, different variable emphasised. That is a claim a statistician can attack, which is exactly why it belongs here.