I think a deep sense of this Yoga is that "Grothendieck's vision of motives was as a universal cohomolgy theory but also _**as higher dimensional version of Galois theory**"._ You can see this for examples by its 0-dimensional examples, the so called [Artin motives](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/11932/references-for-artin-motives) and how motives are "understood" via [Motivic Galois groups](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/motivic+Galois+group). In André book, there are plenty of Galoisian remarks on motives.

_In the same way as there are schemes of all dimensions, there are fibrations of all relative dimensions above a scheme $S$, and not only the relative dimension 0 of the coverings. When $S=Spec(F)$, these are ‘varieties’ defined by algebraic equations in more than one variable. In this vertical direction, Grothendieck also gave a partial generalization of Galois theory, the "$l$-adic cohomology" of fibrations. The cohomology, or rather the homology, of a topological space had been invented by Poincaré, and as soon as the 1940’s, André Weil was interested in adapting it to algebraic geometry. After pioneering work by Jean-Pierre Serre, Grothendieck realized this adaptation, associating to every fibration of a scheme $S$ the $l$-adic cohomology spaces that are continuous linear representations of the fundamental group $π_S$; we call these Galois representations of $S$. We would have a complete generalization of Galois theory if we could have moved back up from these to algebraic varieties; this is the object of Grothendieck’s theory of **‘motives’**, which, even today, remains conjectural. Outside of relative dimension 0, we know only the case of the varieties called ‘Abelian’ conjectured by John Tate and proved by Gerd Faltings in 1983: when two Abelian varieties have the same $l$-adic cohomology, each parametrizes the other. But if it is true that the category of fibrations, or rather of ‘motives’, over a base scheme $S$ is equivalent to that of the Galois representations of $S$, determining these representations and their mutual relations is crucial._ **Galois theory and Arithmetic, Lafforgue and Florence**.

My own reading of Grothendieck's Récoltes et semailles suggested to me that was the Motivic Galois groups the are at the core of the yoga and not motives themselves. The Galois nature of this yoga is important since the very quest for the most profound "invariante de la forme", Grothendieck says: Ainsi, le motif m'apparait comme le plus profond "invariant de la forme" qu'on a su associer jusqu'a présent a une variété algébrique, mis a part son "groupe fondamental motivique". **L'un et l'autre invariant représentent pour moi comme les "ombres" d'un "type d'homotopie motivique" qui resterait a décrire, Récoltes et semailles".** Because of this yoga is about the most profound galoisian invariant it is for me that not Motives as cohomology theory but Galois theory of a homotopy theory or a higher relative is the nature of this yoga, it is still missing a motivic theory for Grothendieck's homotopy developed in Lawrence Breen letters. 

To conclude I would like to cite the following: **"Grothendieck's broken dream was to develop a theory of motives, which would, in particular, unify Galois theory and topology". A mad day's work, Cartier.**

**Autour de la «théorie de l'ambiguite«, de Galois a nos jours, Y André**

**Groupes de galois motiviques et periodes, Y André.**

Note: Some edits will appear later, there are some things yet to be explained in detail, but it is enough for today.