Descriptions about the world vs. Manuals for action
It is broadly accepted that one of the most important functions of language is to describe the world outside it. Could it be the case that when it comes to the Indian systems, they all (whether it is Advaita vedanta, Yoga vasistha, visista advaita) are teaching one to act, to live in a particular way? In other words, they are not saying what there is in the world but are manuals in a manner of speaking. Of course, in order to understand a manual you need reference points in the world. So when they say for example that when the Buddha argued for anatman or Sankara spoke about atman, one way of interpreting, which is what most Indian philosophers have done, is that they attribute doctrines to them and say this is a description of the world. But actually they were not describing the world. Buddha does not say atman exists or does not exist or whatever. Sankara is not saying atman exists because that would be a description of our world. So what a guru does in our tradition, which is what the upadesa is, is to teach one to not look at these as descriptions of the world; he teaches one how to transform them into a way of living. So Yoga vasistha does not tell you what the world is like. That can be said in one sentence. Why then does this man have to write so much? It is to help you go on in a certain way and then say that this is not a description of the world.
(p. 308 “Classical Indian Thought and the English Language” edited by Mullick, et al.)